Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (by Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (by
Order)

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS
(FELIXSTOWE) BILL (by Order)

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL
POWERS) BILL (by Order)

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (by Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (by Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the relief of flooding in part of the catchment area of the River Medway, to authorise the Southern Water Authority to construct works and to acquire lands, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Section 55 of the Land Drainage Act 1930 and Section 38 of Land Drainage Act 1961 and Section 37 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968.—[Mr. Robert Sheldon.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Family Benefits

Mr. Peter Bottomley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the TUC and CBI for increased family benefits.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): None in recent months, no doubt because there is general support for the new child benefit scheme, which is due to start in April 1977.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the child benefit scheme does nothing for one-parent families who are in receipt of supplementary benefit and that the introduction in October 1977 of an allowance for the first child will be far too late? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the son of this incomes policy is put together during the next three or four months the interests of those 14 million parents and 14 million children, who amount to over half the population of this country, are taken into account just as much as the TUC's 10 million?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is just as well that the hon. Gentleman is asking the first Question. It is not fair to the House if we have long supplementary questions.

Mr. Barnett: We shall take everything into account in coming to our views in the next round of the incomes policy.

Mrs. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that April 1977 will be too late to help those children who are cold and hungry this winter? Will he look at the supplementary benefit scale with a view to helping the poorest families as soon as possible?

Mr. Barnett: I appreciate my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in this matter. However,.it is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am sure that she will take careful note of my hon. Friend's view.

Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the reviewing of tax thresholds in relation to any increase in family


benefits as at least as important? Does he recognise that those who are not in receipt of benefit and who are on low earnings compare unfavourably when most of any increase in their low earnings is taken in tax?

Mr. Barnett: We are certainly aware of the problem and we shall also look at tax thresholds.

Mr. David Howell: How much longer will the Minister tolerate a situation in which a man who has two children and who earns £45 a week can take home less money than if he had stayed out of work in the first place?

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman overstates the case. There is only a small number of such people.

Dividend Restraint

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to abolish dividend restraint.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The future of the dividend control will be considered in the development of counter-inflation policy as a whole.

Mr. Lamont: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that dividend restraint helps the rich private investor who wants capital accumulation and not income from his investment? Is it not the case that the Diamond Commission pointed out that the only beneficiaries from abolishing dividend restraint would be small investors, pension funds and charities? Why do the Government continue to penalise them?

Mr. Barnett: I do not entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's case. As I am sure he will recognise, successive Governments have believed some form of dividend restraint to be necessary in the context of any counter-inflation policy. If we ask those earning incomes to have some restraint, it is not unreasonable to include dividend recipients, too.

Dr. Bray: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we have dividend restraint for the reasons he stated, the natural accompaniment is an effective wealth tax?

Mr. Barnett: As my hon. Friend knows, we shall be introducing an effective wealth tax.

Mr. MacGregor: Is the Chief Secretary aware that one of his colleagues in a previous reply on this subject said that the Government would take decisions in the light of the Diamond Commission's Report? As that Report is riddled with arguments and facts in favour of the abolition of dividend restraint unconnected with any pay policy, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that now is the time to act?

Mr. Barnett: We shall be looking at the subject of dividend control in the context of our review of the next stage of the counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although in theory corporation tax has not been abolished, in practice we collect hardly anything from it? Will he explain why that is and take measures to see that the appropriate amount is collected?

Mr. Barnett: The Question is about dividend restraint, but I can tell my hon. Friend that his assertion is not entirely correct. We are still collecting substantial sums from corporation tax.

£ Sterling

Mr. Trotter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the 50p coin was introduced; and what has been the fall in the value of the pound since that time.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The 50p coin was introduced on 14th October 1969; the internal purchasing power of the pound fell by 52 per cent. between October 1969 and December 1975.

Mr. Trotter: As the pound in our pocket has been so obviously devalued in this period, would it not be realistic for the Government to accept that and to introduce a £1 coin, which might be distinguished from other coins by a large hole in the middle?

Mr. Sheldon: The hole in the value of the pound is the responsibility of the several Governments who have held office since 1969. I have no firm views about the introduction of a new coin to replace the £1 note. If there is a demand for it, it will be considered.

Public Expenditure

Mr. Aitken: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to implement the proposals of the Expenditure Committee with regard to the Financing of Public Expenditure (ref 69–1) published on 11th December 1975.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I am still considering this Report and a reply will be given in due course.

Mr. Aitken: Is the Chief Secretary aware that that is a disappointingly slow response to the Committee's criticisms? Does he accept that they were a devastating indictment of the Treasury's inability adequately to control public expenditure? What specific steps does the Chief Secretary intend to take to make sure that there is not another £5,800 million of unplanned expenditure and will those steps include cash limits?

Mr. Aitken: Is the Chief Secretary aware that that is a disappointingly slow response to the Committee's criticisms? Does he accept that they were a devastating indictment of the Treasury's inability adequately to control public expenditure? What specific steps does the Chief Secretary intend to take to make sure that there is not another £5,800 million of unplanned expenditure and will those steps include cash limits?

Mr. Barnett: We shall be introducing cash limits. It is not true that the response is slow. We hope to give a reply to the Committee in the next week or two. The allegations about the so-called £5 billion are wholly untrue and were answered by the Treasury in evidence to the Committee.

Mr. Ridley: The Chief Secretary will know that one reason for the £5·8 billion was the very high increase in the price of land and houses. Now that the price of land and houses has fallen, to what great saving in public expenditure may we look forward?

Mr. Barnett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can control himself sufficiently to wait for the public expenditure White Paper. As he rightly said, part of the £5 billion to which Mr. Godley referred arose from the rather uncontrolled growth of the money supply during the period when the Conservative Government were in office, a Government whom the hon. Gentleman sometimes supported.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date, at the latest, he expects to publish the public expenditure White Paper; and whether that White Paper will contain the promised publication of the various cash limits for expenditure 1976–77.

Mr. Joel Barnett: My right hon. Friend expects to publish the White Paper on

public expenditure on 19th February. It will not include details of cash limits for 1976–77. As announced in the debate on the Address on 25th November, details of the cash limits would be published around the beginning of the financial year.

Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for his announcement of the date of the public expenditure White Paper. Presumably that means that for the time being at any rate the differences within the Cabinet have been resolved, and I am delighted to hear it. Will the Chief Secretary assure the House that the system of cash limits will mean a great deal more than the mere allocation of the relative price effect among the component parts of the public expenditure programme? Will he further assure the House that public expenditure in 1976–77 will not materially exceed the figure envisaged at the time of the Budget, when cuts of £900 million were announced?

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until he sees the White Paper, which will give him all the information he requires on cash limits. Expenditure for 1976–77 will be disclosed on 19th February in the public expenditure White Paper.

Mr. Lane: Will the White Paper give clear evidence that the Government are in earnest about shifting resources from the public sector into more productive channels?

Mr. Barnett: We shall set out in the public expenditure White Paper the Government's policy for public expenditure both for 1976–77 and the years thereafter.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce detailed proposals for public expenditure levels in the next financial year.

Mr. Joel Barnett: These will be included in the White Paper on public expenditure to be published later this month.

Mr. Latham: Will the White Paper confirm or deny the extensively leaked report that one cut in public expenditure will be in Civil Service manpower?

Mr. Barnett: I cannot confirm or deny anything. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to wait until 19th


February to see precisely what the White Paper contains.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that unemployment is now so widespread and so serious that, unfortunately, there will not be enough resources and manpower to cover both necessary public expenditure and the investment in industry which he requires?

Mr. Barnett: I know that my hon. Friend will agree with the Government's policy, announced some time ago, of not cutting public expenditure now for precisely the reasons he gave—namely, the present level of unemployment, about which he and I are concerned. That is why we shall not be cutting public expenditure for 1976–77.

Mr. Henderson: As the right hon. Gentleman has been generous enough to take us into his confidence about the date of publication of the White Paper, will he tell us when the Budget Statement will be made?

Mr. Barnett: I am happy to do that as well—6th April.

Mr. Cow: Will the Chief Secretary allay the fears of the public and the foreign bankers by telling the House that the amount of money which the Government intend to borrow next year will be significantly less than the £12,000 million they are borrowing this yar?

Mr. Barnett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to wait in patience both for the public expenditure White Paper and for other statements in the Budget on 6th April which will make everything clear to him and everyone else.

Mr. Helfer: As 200,000 construction workers are out of work, will more finance be made available to local authorities to enable them to bring out of their pigeon-holes construction plans which are temporarily held back? Would not that be a great boost for the construction industry and help to bring down unemployment?

Mr. Barnett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's concern. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement next Thursday dealing with certain aspects of that matter.

Money Supply

Mr. Luard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average monthly percentage increase in the money supply—M1 and M3—between June 1970 and February 1974, and the corresponding figures for the period since March 1974.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): Monthly series for the money supply going back to June 1970 are not available. On the basis of seasonally adjusted quarterly figures, the average annual rate of growth of M1 was 8·8 per cent. from end June 1970 to end March 1974 and 17 per cent. from end March 1974 to end September 1975. The comparative figures for M3 are 20·2 per cent. and 11·3 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Luard: Is it not surprising that the figure for M3—which is generally regarded as being the significant figure—is given such inordinate importance by the Opposition when my right hon. Friend's achievement is so much better than was the achievement of the Conservative Government?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For those who are interested in controlling the money supply, the fact is that my achievement on M3 was four times superior to that of the Conservative Government, which allowed M3 to increase in their last year of office, 1972 to 1973, Q4 to Q4, by 29 per cent. as against a 13 per cent. increase in money GDP. The figures for Q3 1975 on Q3 1974, showed an 11 per cent. increase in M3 as against a 21 per cent. increase in money GDP over the same period.

Mr. Powell: To what causes does the right hon. Gentleman attribute the inverse contrast between those two pairs of figures?

Mr. Healey: Primarily to the far superior fiscal probity of the present Administration.

Mr. Hordern: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the only reason for the money supply figures that he has given being lower than they were during the Conservative Administration is that investment is now declining and the rate of increase of consumption is falling dramatically? Is it not clear that during


the next two years, if the Chancellor's policy of encouraging investment is to be possible, the money supply must grow unless he proposes to reduce public expenditure within the next two years?

Mr. Healey: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. As regards the money supply figures, he will recall that in the year to which I was referring, 1972 Q4 to 1973 Q4, investment was still falling under the previous Conservative Administration. Growth came to a total halt in the middle of that year.

Mr. Nott: As the right hon. Gentleman has laid all his stress on the M3 figures, will he undertake to concentrate entirely on M3 during the course of the next year as being the only real indicator of the money supply?

Mr. Healey: No, I shall publish both figures. I have made them clear this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is great dispute among theologians who profess the theory of monetarism as to which is the best indicator. The United States Administration takes the view that the M1 is the better indicator.

Mr. Bates: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the growth of the money supply on the M3 definition in the last full year for which figures are available.

Mr. Denis Healey: Over the 12 months to mid-December 1975 M3 rose by 7·9 per cent. seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Bates: Is not my right hon. Friend's careful handling of money supply one of the most optimistic features for the future continued decrease in the rate of inflation? Is it not typical that Opposition Members, having called for such a policy, do not now seek to applaud it? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate his view that it is not necessary to make public expenditure cuts?

Mr. Healey: I am always grateful for support from my hon. Friends, or indeed from any part of the House. I used to have support on these matters from prominent Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. I ask the House to recognise—I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for answering at this length; I have your rebuke very much in mind—that people tend to

exaggerate the importance of the money supply. I think it is important to keep the matter under control and I have done so. However, I do not think that that aspect is as important as many hon. Members believe.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does the Chancellor agree that the principal objection levelled against following a so-called monetarist policy was that it would lead to a million or more unemployed? Is it not a curious and dangerous paradox that the moment our unemployment figures rise, the right hon. Gentleman suddenly discovers this new technique of financial probity which is to be imposed on top of our other economic stresses?

Mr. Healey: I cannot fully track the intricacies of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The fact is that I started to control money supply the moment I came to office two years ago. The country that uses money supply control as a main instrument of policy is the United States. There unemployment is very much higher than it is in Britain and, according to official forecasts, will remain higher than in this country for the next five years.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Loyden: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue has accrued from VAT on television repairs and maintenance during the last six months.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I regret the information is not available.

Mr. Leyden: Does my hon. Friend agree that this rate of tax has an adverse effect upon low income groups, and especially pensioners, in the maintenance of television sets and other electrical goods? Does he agree that it has had an indirect effect upon the television tube industry? Is it not now about time the tax was reviewed so as to relieve that area?

Mr. Sheldon: I do not see the connection between the television tabe industry and VAT on television repairs and maintenance. I understand my hon. Friend's natural concern about those with limited means who have to get such repairs carried out. My hon. Friend must be aware that this situation is inherent in the application of VAT to all goods.


There can be no distinction between VAT charged on goods and VAT charged on repairs and maintenance. Very often one is a substitute for the other.

Mr. Marten: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said, as it does not make much sense? Will he further consider the 25 per cent. VAT charged on the maintenance of electrical goods? It is a high rate and it encourages people to carry out their own repairs on electrical goods, which is often highly dangerous. I should not like to think that the hon. Gentleman was responsible for the death of anyone by electric shock.

Mr. Sheldon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern. This is an argument that we explored in some detail in the Finance Bill debates last year. I have waited since then—it has been almost a year—for further evidence about the problems to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I am pleased to say that I have not seen any evidence about accidents of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is asserting.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. Friend agree that a washing machine is not a luxury but an indis"ensable piece of equipment?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty, but the Question concerns television repairs. If the Minister wandered into the realm of washing machines, he should not have done so.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my hon. Friend agree that as a television set, for example, is a desirable part of household entertainment and education, so washing machines are of equal value in another context? Why should they be so bard hit by VAT?

Mr. Sheldon: I shall go as far as to say that both articles are desirable. In view of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should say any more than that.

Mr. David Howell: Does the hon. Gentleman have an estimate of the number of people thrown out of work by the high rate of VAT that is applied to what he himself calls socially less desirable goods?

Mr. Sheldon: No. Let me take this opportunity to correct what was said in an earlier debate—namely, that 20,000 jobs were at stake. I think that there is a little confusion in that the figure of 20,000 was the result of the demana effects of the whole of the Budget of last year. If the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) cares to go into this matter in a little more detail, I think that he will find that my statement is correct.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the recent drop in the home market of the purchasing of home produced electric hair-dryers and toasters, he will now reduce the VAT down to 8 per cent. on such goods.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Wainwright: That is the usual statement, Mr. Speaker. May I impress upon my hon. Friend—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. This is a time to receive information. Impressions can be left until later.

Mr. Wainwright: When my hon. Friend studies the effects of the Budget, will he take into account that the Hotpoint factory in my constituency is on very short time? Will my hon. Friend do something to ensure that demand increases for these necessary household goods? Or does he want the British people to dry their hair before an open fire and to toast their bread on a toasting fork as of old?

Mr. Sheldon: My hon. Friend knows that I shall be happy to take into account everything that he asks me to take into account, especially regarding his constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] I would say the same for almost any hon. Member. My hon. Friend must remember that the 25 per cent. rate of VAT cannot be held responsible for the fall in demand for electric hair driers and toasters. I am extremely concerned about the large number of imports of these items, for they show that demand is certainly holding up, and that cannot be laid at the door of VAT.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is the Minister fully aware of the extent to which we


are faced with foreign competition in the domestic appliance industry? Is he aware that these are low-priced imports and that the 25 per cent. VAT discrimnates against the home-produced high quality product?

Mr. Sheldon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, VAT was introduced as a broad-based tax without discrimination. It is a tax that I reluctantly inherited. It is not a tax that I should have thought was ideal for any of the hon. Gentleman's purposes. My task is to administer, however reluctantly, the rather inadequate tax that we have. However, the domestic electrical appliance industry will be very much advantaged by the removal of the hire-purchase and credit restrictions. Indeed, this action has been well received by the industry as a whole.

Mr. Michael McGuire: Will not my hon. Friend agree that although there are other factors that have led to the extenguishing of the Thorn factory in my constituency, the 25 per cent. VAT rate has crippled the industry? Will my hon. Friend further agree that the Treasury needs to think out more deeply the effects of a 25 per cent. VAT rate? Will he take on board the electrical appliance industry's plea that if it is to survive the rate must be substantially reduced?

Mr. Sheldon: I read the Adjournment debate which my hon. Friend initiated on this subject. He will recall from that debate that there were a large number of other factors involved, notably the failure of the industry to take account of the particular demands that were then in evidence. I understand the important point which he has subsequently raised. Following the monitoring exercise which I mentioned earlier and which I should be receiving within the next few days, all these matters will be available for consideration before the Budget judgment is determined.

Mr. Hannam: Does the Minister agree that, if the object of multi-rate VAT is to increase revenue and if the result is unemployment in and the breakdown of those industries affected, he is achieving the worst of both worlds?

Mr. Sheldon: I do not accept the lion. Gentleman's premise. The higher rate of VAT was a straightforward measure to increase the revenue at a very difficult time when all sources of revenue needed

to be considered. It has been extremely successful in that respect and has involved a small number of civil servants. As far as other matters are concerned, we shall await the results of the monitoring exercise.

Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that the Thorn electronics factory in my constituency has already suffered considerable redundancies and more redundancies are feared? If my hon. Friend could see his way clear to reduce the 25 per cent. VAT rate to 8 per cent. On coloured television sets it would make a considerable difference to the employment situation in Bradford.

Mr. Sheldon: I understand the problems of the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Unemployment problems are very serious. My hon. Friend will be aware that the major problem for that industry arose with the reflation which occurred in 1972 and which produced an enormous demand for television sets, a demand which could not be met by production. Consequently there was a massive inflow of imports which established a firm footing. In my view, that is the most important and most serious problem of all.

Mr. Farr: What evidence does the Minister have that many foreign imports are being dumped here below the cost of manufacture?

Mr. Sheldon: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is always anxious to have details of dumping. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the comments and debates on this subject that no allegations have been sufficiently well proved for my right hon. Friend to take the type of action that he would be only too happy to take were the evidence available.

Mr. Michael Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what revenue is available to the Treasury as a result of the imposition of 25 per cent. VAT on galvanised straining eye bolts.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: None. These items remain chargeable at the 8 per cent. standard rate of VAT.

Mr. Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under pending legislation these items will be charged at 25 per cent.


whether or not they are provided free of charge and whether or not they are purchased from a hardware store and handed over to the boatbuilder? I believe that Section 18(4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975 is applicable. If that is so, it demonstrates that the Government have a total lack of understanding of the problems of the boat-building industry and the evils of multi-rate VAT.

Mr. Sheldon: As I have said, the items remain chargeable at the 8 per cent. standard rate of VAT. If the hon. Gentleman has any information from constituents who may have been overcharged, I shall be happy to look into the matter.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will my hon. Friend enlighten the House by telling us what galvanised straining eye bolts are?

Mr. Sheldon: They are items that have wide industrial use and application. They are used in the boat-building industry and elsewhere.

Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boat-building industry is especially hard-hit by the anomalies of this tax? Will he give an assurance that when he reviews multi-rate VAT he will take account of the reduction in employment in many industries, a reduction which can be traced directly to the increase of VAT on many items to 25 per cent.?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman will know that, following last year's Budget, I set in train a monitoring exercise for certain aspects of VAT. The report of that exercise will be coming to me within the next few days. It will obviously be considered before the Budget is decided.

Income Tax (Higher Incomes)

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward legislation to reduce the rate of income tax on higher incomes so as to bring down the rate of emigration from the United Kingdom of able and revenue-producing citizens.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget proposals.

Mr. Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an indication of the

revenue lost as a result of people leaving Great Britain because of excessive taxation?

Mr. Sheldon: It is very hard to give details of the increase in revenue that is obtained by taxing those who have very high earnings and who decide to stay here. We are grateful for the Diamond Report, which shows that it is unlikely that many higher income earners emigrate from the United Kingdom. That is a finding that will illuminate all our debates on the subject.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would it not be better for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devote any available resources to the lower end of the income scale, especially to old people in need of fuel, thereby reducing their rate of emigration to the Kingdom of the Almighty above?

Mr. Sheldon: There we have it. There is the voice of those who rightly say that certain advantages claimed for higher earners should be considered in the light of those who are less well-off. What we are trying to achieve—I think that we are being successful—is a fair balance between the competing claims.

Retirement Pensioners (Part-time Earnings)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to exempt from tax part-time earnings by retirement pensioners.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The age allowance already provides a measure of tax exemption for pensioners over the age of 65 who supplement their State retirement pension with small earnings. I do do not think it would be fair to other taxpayers to go further in the direction which my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who now receive old-age pensions stood by the nation in strenuous and difficult times and gave no thought to emigrating because they were not making enough money? Is it not now time for their earnings to be uplifted? If he cannot end the rule completely, will he raise its ceiling so that we can give as much consideration to pensioners as we do to inefficient capitalist entrepreneurs?

Mr. Sheldon: I share my hon. Friend's concern for retirement pensioners and I appreciate their contribution to the nation. It is fully recognised by the fact that elderly people have a considerably higher tax starting point then do young people—almost 50 per cent. higher in the case of married old-age pensioners and more than 40 per cent. higher for single persons. This takes account of their special needs, which will always be in the forefront of our minds.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that one of my constituents aged 70, a serving servant of this House, received in overtime £40 gross two weeks ago but earned in total a net sum of £10? Is that not an absurd situation and will he examine it?

Mr. Sheldon: There must be a number of special factors relating to a tax bill of that kind. It does not appear to be consistent with the income such a person would expect to have. If there are any problems which the hon. Gentleman would like me to examine in regard to that constituent or anybody else, I shall be happy to do so.

International Monetary Fund (Conference)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to make any changes in the policies of his Department as a result of his attendance at the International Monetary Fund conference on 12th January.

Mr. Denis Healey: As I told the House on 12th January, the outcome of the meeting was very satisfactory. I do not anticipate that any changes in my economic or financial policies will be necessary as a result of the meeting. A Bill will, in due course, be submitted to the House to implement the increase in our subscription to the IMF and to ratify amendments to the IMF's Articles of Agreement.

Mr. Canavan: Does my right hon. Friend remember that in his letter of 18th December to the IMF he referred to the Government's policy of increased economic growth and a reduction in unemployment? Do not the bureaucrats in the Treasury realise that we have 1½ million unemployed? Would it not be a

good idea to use some of our increased borrowing rights to create jobs by channelling investment into industry through the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend should know that the unemployment figure of 1½ million—I think he meant nearly 1½ million—was due to the presence on the register of over 100,000 students, all of whom have now returned to college. Therefore, as I said last week, the figure is now nothing like as high as he suggested. Seasonally corrected, the figure is 1,200,000. The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is president of a body that put the figure at 800,000, ridiculously lower than the true figure.
I am deeply conscious of the level of unemployment and of the fact that it is still rising. However, it would have been very much higher had the Government not been prepared to accept a large public sector borrowing requirement this year. I shall be announcing to the House in a week's time a series of measures to try to bring down the rate of increase in unemployment in the immediate future.

Mr. Lawson: To what does the right hon. Gentleman attribute the fact that over the past year unemployment in the United Kingdom has risen by about 85 per cent., whereas in the rest of the European Community it has risen by about 30 per cent.?

Mr. Healey: I imagine that the situation in the rest of the European Community depends on averaging figures in the tiny countries and the larger countries.

Mr. Lawson: No, that is not so.

Mr. Healey: The level of unemployment as a percentage of employable people in Britain on the same calculation as is used in other countries is lower than in France and Italy, very much lower than in the United States, and about the same as that in Western Germany where in a single month there was an increase of 10 per cent.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that married women are not included in the unemployment figures and should be added to them? Does he not agree that what is needed is something more extensive than the measures


which he announced last week? Will he reconsider the imposition of import controls?

Mr. Healey: I do not recall announcing any measures last week. I then said that I should be announcing a series of measures in the near future, and I shall be announcing them next Thursday. I also made clear that reflation of domestic demand, whether brought in by tax cuts, increases in public expenditure, or import controls, would have no effect on the unemployment figure this year. The risk is that we might repeat the tragic blunders made by the Conservative Administration when excessive reflation in 1971 and 1972 brought about a seizure of the whole economy in 1973, as is now recognised by the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the request I made a little earlier also applies to the length of Ministers' answers.

Mr. David Howell: As the level of unemployment is falling in every OECD country other than Belgium and the United Kingdom, should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer correct the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and avoid misleading the House and the country about figures, which at times he is rather inclined to do?

Mr. Healey: Characteristically, the hon. Gentleman is attempting to confuse the House. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) referred to the rate of increase in the past year. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) is talking about what is happening at present. In Germany, the rate of unemployment is increasing; there are some signs that it is also increasing in France. It is our objective to bring down the rate of unemployment as fast as possible and on current policies we look like doing so at least as successfully as other major European countries.

PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)

Mr. Townsend: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit the east coast of Scotland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have at present no plans to
do so, Sir, although as the House knows I have arranged a series of meetings on industrial problems in Scotland in the spring.

Mr. Townsend: When the Prime Minister next decides to visit the east coast of Scotland will he take a personal interest in the defence plans for Britain's vital and vulnerable North Sea oil/gas platforms, because those plans have been criticised by numerous independent defence experts? Will he try to achieve better co-ordination between the numerous Government Departments, the four separate police authorities and the commercial operators involved? Secondly—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not fair to other hon. Members if the hon. Gentleman puts half a dozen supplementary questions.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. As he will know, the Government's policy on measures for the peacetime protection of our offshore oil interests was announced in the House on 11th February 1975 by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. During subsequent debates there have been further additions to the information already available to the House. New Royal Navy ships will begin to enter service and a number of other protection methods are being added. It is of course the fact that the Home Secretary—in Scotland the Secretary of State for Scotland—is responsible for dealing with onshore terrorism, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the offshore position has been fully explained by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind when he eventually makes a visit to the east coast of Scotland that, because of the Government's economic failure, expenditure on the social services, old folks homes, home helps and other services of that sort has been savagely cut back in the Tayside region? Will he further bear in mind that, because of the temperature differences in Scotland compared with the South-East of England, in Scotland it costs 14 per cent. more to heat houses to the temperature level of houses in the South-East? What will he do about dealing with that situation?

The Prime Minister: These questions are very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I do not accept at all what the hon. Gentleman has said about the cutback in the social services in the Tayside region, because since this Government came into office there has been a substantial increase. We have had to rein back further increases. However, in view of the proclivity of the Scottish National Party to vote with the Conservatives, who want to cut back the social services by several billion pounds, I think the hon. Gentleman might study his own record in this matter.

Dr. M. S. Miller: When my right hon. Friend visits the east coast of Scotland will he also take his official car to the west coast of Scotland and visit the constituency and town of East Kilbride? I am sure that he will receive a very warm welcome in that town, which nurtured William and John Hunter, who contributed so much to medicine and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is all very interesting and I am willing to learn, but this is Question Time.

Dr. Miller: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I should like my right hon. Friend to visit the town—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman now ask a Question.

Dr. Miller: The question is: will my right hon. Friend visit the town of East Kilbride?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend knows that I have done so very many times. It does not strictly arise from the Question, because even I know that East Kilbride is not on the east coast of Scotland, but it arises perhaps out of my Answer. I said that I had
arranged a series of meetings on industrial problems in Scotland in the spring",
and they will be principally in West Scotland.

CHANCELLOR OF THE FEDERAL GERMAN REPUBLIC

Mr. Arnold Shaw: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic.

The Prime Minister: I have invited the Chancellor to talks at Chequers on 7th February, Sir.

Mr. Shaw: As France at this time is so firmly committed to one side of the Arab-Israeli dispute, when he meets Herr Schmidt will the Prime Minister endeavour to secure his co-operation within the EEC for an even-handed commitment concerning the Middle East?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I have repeatedly had the opportunity of discussing with the Heads of Government and the Council of Ministers matters concerning the Middle East. Regrettably, there have been differences when these matters have come up—for example, at the United Nations. We have done our best consistently to work for a joint contribution by the Nine in the search for a just settlement in the Middle East. I shall be surprised if we do not discuss this matter on Saturday as we have on previous occasions when I have met the Federal German Chancellor.

Mr. Jasper More: When the Prime Minister meets the German Chancellor, will he draw his attention to the recently reported statement of the Belgian Defence Minister—that Western European countries must either do more about their own defence or risk losing American protection? Will he assure the German Chancellor that the United Kingdom Government will increase rather than reduce defence expenditure?

The Prime Minister: I have not said that we will increase defence expenditure. This comes badly from a party pressing for thousands of millions of pounds of cuts at this time. I have told the House—the Federal German Chancellor is well aware of what is said in this House—that any reductions, any economies, will not fall on our contribution to the teeth element in NATO.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Would it not be more appropriate for the Prime Minister to visit Italy, bearing in mind that that founder member of the Common Market is now nearly bankrupt in both financial and leadership terms? If the—

Mr. Speaker: Order. How on earth the hon. Member links that question with the Chancellor of the Federal German Republic I do not know.

Mr. Hughes: I shall try.

Mr. Speaker: If we are to wander all round the globe on a specific subject, the House will get nowhere.

Mr. Hughes: I was about to suggest that if we further integrate our economy with that organisation, we could eventually suffer the same fate.

The Prime Minister: At least my hon. Friend, unlike the chunnerers opposite, will note the significant improvement in economic prospects announced by the CBI and the Financial Times as well as by other indices. If I am to meet the Federal German Chancellor on 7th February, I cannot be in Italy at the same time. Neverthless, as I have made clear, there are plans for a meeting of the so-called European Summit—the European Council—in Luxembourg at the end of April.

Mr. Amery: Will the Prime Minister explain to the German Chancellor that the recent attack by a British official, Ambassador Ivor Richard, on a retired American official, Ambassador Mr. Moynihan, was unprecedented, regrettable and will not be repeated? Will he also explain to the Chancellor that our German Allies need not fear that their representatives will be treated with such a gross lack of diplomatic propriety at any time?

The Prime Minister: The Federal German Chancellor has no responsibility for what might have been said by Mr. Moynihan or by Her Majesty's Ambassador at the United Nations. I certainly intend to give no explanation of these matters to the Federal German Chancellor. Our Ambassador was entitled to say what he did in this matter. Obviously we all appreciate the frankest possible speaking at the United Nations and elsewhere, but it is not necessarily my view that that kind of speaking is good for either the Western Alliance or the United Nations.

TUC

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister when he last met the TUC; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 25th November, Sir.

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend remind the TUC that he is currently leading an army of 1½ million unemployed workers which is costing £1 billion in unemployment and related benefits and another £1 billion in lost tax? Will he take its half muted advice to impose import controls on a wide range of goods and direct investment to stop this degradation of 1½ million workers?

The Prime Minister: The TUC, when it meets myself or my right hon. Friends, is always capable of briefing itself and of deciding what it will say to us. I am sure that if my hon. Friend sent the TUC any supplementary briefs, it would consider them very carefully, though it might want him to get his figures right the first time round.
My hon. Friend will be aware that the TUC is repeatedly on record as being against any general system of import controls of the kind proposed several times by him both in the House and outside.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the TUC the enormous increase in the amount of tax taken out of the pay packet by this Government? Is he aware that this year the average household in Britain will pay £335 more in income tax than in 1974? Is not this the intolerable cost of Socialism?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady will know that these figures have been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer both inside and outside the House and that he has expressed his anxiety and even given some hints as to his intentions in these matters. However, she will know that the figures she quotes would have to be much increased if we increased defence expenditure by £4·8 billion, as she has been advocating. There would also be a further very big increase if this Government were to fulfil the frivolous election promises which she made in 1974 regarding mortgages.

Mr. Duffy: Has the Prime Minister noticed that the indications that the Government are getting inflation more under control continue to strengthen business confidence and that this revival in optimism is due not only to a feeling that the recession is bottoming out, but as this


week's Financial Times survey of business forecasts points out, to the more favourable response of the trade unions to the economic situation, a response of which we have just been given an indication?

The Prime Minister: In an earlier answer I referred to both the CBI and the Financal Times monthly survey being the most optimistic since the middle of 1973 when the Conservative Government were in charge. They also confirm absolutely what the Opposition always deny—that the sheer fall in production, productivity, turnover, profitability and capital investment began in the summer of 1973, which was even before increased oil prices and the three-day week. That destroys the whole of their argument.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In any discussions with the TUC will the Prime Minister give high priority to the growth of unemployment among the young as reported in an EEC Commission Report published yesterday, which shows that in Britain 35 per cent. of the unemployed are between 15 and 25 years of age?

The Prime Minister: We are all concerned about the percentage of the young unemployed. In Scotland, where there is a different school-leaving pattern from that south of the border, it is particularly acute. The hon. Lady will be aware of the proposals and the decisions announced and now put into effect by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment at the turn of the year about help specifically for school-leavers.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the last time he met TUC leaders to discuss general economic matters he assured them that resources would be made available for the manufacture of capital goods for stock? Will he reflect on the debate on unemployment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there was a continuing argument with the EEC Commissioners about whether Britain would be allowed to do that? Therefore, will he announce to the House his determination to ensure that these resources will be made available in line with his promise?

The Prime Minister: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the House of his intention to do more in regard to

taking stocks off the market. He has indicated that he will make a further announcement in the very near future about further action—not on the basis of a general, wild reflation, but on relevant measures to help with employment—and I had better not anticipate anything he may say.

FALKLAND ISLANDS (RRS "SHACKLETON")

Mr. Tugendhat: Mr. Tugendhat (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the attack on a British vessel by the Argentine destroyer.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): At 12.30 GMT on 4th February, an Argentine destroyer, the "Almirante Storni", fired shots across the bows of the Royal Research Ship "Shackleton". The Argentine destroyer threatened to fire into the hull of the "Shackleton" if she did not heave to. Subsequently the destroyer ordered the "Shackleton" to proceed to the port of Ushuaia near Cape Horn. The Governor of the Falkland Islands instructed the captain to continue steaming towards Port Stanley, which he did and arrived at 20.45 GMT.
The incident took place 78 miles south of Cape Pembroke as "Shackleton" was returning from a period of scientific work in the South-West Atlantic under an international programme.
On learning of the incident, my right hon. Friend immediately instructed the chargé d'affaires at Buenos Aires to deliver the strongest protest to the Argentine Government and to request that the Argentine destroyer immediately be ordered to stop harassing the "Shackle-ton". I also protested to the Argentine chargé here in equally vigorous terms. The Argentine Government have been left in no doubt of the serious view we take of this incident.

Mr. Tugendhat: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are very worried about the position of the Falkland Islanders, who are almost entirely dependent on the Argentine for their external communications and wholly so for their air communications? Can he confirm that there


are only 37 Royal Marines on the islands and that the only naval vessel there is HMS "Endurance"? While we do not wish to exacerbate the situation in the Argentine, is the hon. Member not aware that in these circumstances a display of weakness is likely to precipitate precisely the kind of crisis we wish to avoid? Does he think that it would be appropriate to strengthen the garrison and the naval presence in the Falkland Islands? Can he also assure us that it is not the Government's intention, as has been reported in the Press, to withdraw HMS "Endurance" in March?

Mr. Rowlands: I have made very clear to the Argentine Government that we do not expect a repetition of this incident and that any further incidents will call into question the basis of our commercial and political relationship. I am sure the House will not expect me to think aloud about action we might have to take in the light of further incidents. I can confirm that there are 37 Royal Marines on the island. HMS "Endurance" is in Port Stanley and her helicopters proved useful in reconnaisance work in yesterday's incident. We shall obviously consider what further action is required in the light of developments and the response to our demands from the Argentine Government.

Mr. Conlan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that this is the second provocative action by the Argentine in a matter of weeks and that the Islanders will be extremely worried about the situation? Does he agree that it is far better to play it cool in this situation in order to remove the obvious anxieties and tensions that exist? Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to have discussions with his counterpart in Buenos Aires in order to cool the situation?

Mr. Rowlands: We shall do everything possible to cool the situation because, like my hon. Friend, we appreciate the worries and concern of the Islanders. I am not quite sure what our next course of action should be or what steps my right hon. Friend should take, especially in view of the fact that we have no ambassador in Buenos Aires and the Argentine does not have an ambassador here. However, we shall take every possible diplomatic initiative to cool the situation.

Mr. Thorpe: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as the Falkland Islanders wish to remain under the sovereignty of this country, we realise and accept all the responsibilities and liabilities that that carries with it? When the hon. Gentleman saw the Argentine chargé d'affaires, was he given any explanation or attempted justification for their action?

Mr. Rowlands: We are conscious of our responsibilities to the Islanders, as previous Governments have been. The chargé d'affaires did not give me an explanation when I saw him last night. They have served a note upon us saying that they claim the waters for 200 miles around the Falkland Islands as part of their claim for the Islands and dependencies themselves.

Mr. Hooley: While an attack on an unarmed vessel like the "Shackleton" is clearly indefensible, does my hon. Friend not realise that, as long as we continue to hold on to 19th century colonies all round the globe, we shall get into this kind of complication?

Mr. Rowlands: The position of the Government is very clear. We respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

Mr. Luce: As it is Britain's primary responsibility to protect the interests of the Islanders, can the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Government will not scrap HMS "Endurance" in the defence review, as has been suggested in some quarters? Will the Government also use their influence with those Latin American Governments with whom we have close and important ties to urge them to press the Argentine Government to stop bullying the Islanders?

Mr. Rowlands: No decision has been taken to scrap HMS "Endurance", which is in Port Stanley at the moment. Of course we shall take every diplomatic opportunity to make representations and to ensure that the views, feelings and wishes of the Islanders are understood throughout Latin America.

Mr. Farr: This incident has highlighted how important it is to have an effective naval presence in that part of the world, so can the hon. Gentleman assure us that if HMS "Endurance" is not to be scrapped, it will be maintained


in service at that station, which is of growing strategic importance?

Mr. Rowlands: In present circumstances, the presence of HMS "Endurance" is obviously important to allay the anxieties and fears of the Islanders. Everyone will recognise and acknowledge the difficulty of a complete naval presence in waters so many thousands of miles from home. We shall clearly take into account all factors when looking at the future naval disposition in the area.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9TH FEBRUARY—Consideration of Private Members' motions, until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, motion on the Select Committee on Abortion.
Motions relating to Community Land Orders and the Landlord and Tenant Regulations.
TUESDAY 10TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Dock Work Regulation Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11TH FEBRUARY—Supply [8th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on the Government's guidelines on State investment in the motor industry, which will arise on a motion to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Industry.
At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.
THURSDAY 12TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Water Charges Bill.
Motion on EEC Documents on Agriculture.
FRIDAY 13TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 16TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords] and of the Road Traffic (Drivers' Ages and Hours of Work) Bill [Lords].

Mrs. Thatcher: As I understand from Treasury answers this afternoon that we are to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday but that the Budget is not to be until 6th April, can the Leader of the House assure us that we shall have one or two days to debate economic and public expenditure matters before the Budget? As fishing matters are now becoming very urgent, can he promise us a day soon to debate this very serious topic?

Mr. Short: On the last point, I said last week that I would bear this in mind and see whether anything could be done. In my reply to the first question from the right hon. Lady last week, I said that in view of the date of the White Paper on expenditure and the date of the Budget, which has been announced, it would be reasonable to have a debate on public expenditure between the two. We missed that opportunity last year, but the gap between the two is longer this time.

Mr. James Johnson: May I ask my right hon. Friend to give favourable consideration to the request last week by the Leader of the Opposition for a fisheries debate? Is he aware that at least three completely new and mortal dangers are facing the industry compared with the situation which existed the last time there was an Icelandic dispute? There is the financial crisis, the question of the 200-mile limit, and, even more important, the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Short: I note my hon. Friend's concern about this issue, which is shared by many hon. Members, and I shall bear the point in mind. Of course, by far the greater proportion of the days available for general debate are in the hands of the Opposition, and it would be an appropriate subject for a Supply Day debate.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the exchanges that have been taking place in Private Business during the last two days between myself and the Government Deputy Chief Whip concerning the appointment of Members to the Committee of Selection? Is he also aware that those exchanges are likely to continue unless we and the other minor opposition parties are given the opportunity to have a seat on that Committee? The Committee directly affects


each of our members. Will the Leader of the House make a statement about this and possibly consider having a debate on the matter next week—unless, that is, he can give us an assurance that the Government will suggest that the membership of the Committee might be increased?

Mr. Short: I have taken a very great interest in the exchanges that have gone on, but this, of course, is Private Business which comes up at the beginning of business each day. I shall continue to watch the position with interest.

Mr. Greville Janner: When does my right hon. Friend intend to provide the promised time to introduce the Bill to make compulsory the wearing of seat belts?

Mr. Short: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I have not forgotten the Bill. Indeed, I would not be allowed to. When there is a gap in the timetable I shall put it down again for Second Reading.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs appears to regard as irrelevant for discussion by the Council of European Ministers such matters as Soviet breaches of the Helsinki Agreement, Soviet intervention in Angola and the potential threat to the security of supply of our raw materials. Will the Leader of the House therefore give some indication that the Government recognise the seriousness of these matters by arranging for an early debate on them, and particularly that the debate should take place before the Budget? In that way they might recognise the economic as well as the political importance of what is going on.

Mr. Short: I replied to a number of questions on this subject last week. I pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition had generated the controversy in this respect and—

Mr. Macmillan: That is not true.

Mr. Short: I suggest therefore that she uses one of her days for such a debate. There is a debate on Monday on a Private Member's motion which I suppose will go until seven o'clock. It is on foreign policy and morality, and it would seem to be the appropriate

occasion on which to raise questions of this kind.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Leader of the House recall that three weeks ago in replying to a question I put to him he promised to arrange for a debate on the steel industry as soon as possible? In view of the developments since then which affect the livelihood of people in the industry, will he give some indication when "as soon as possible" will be?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman never allows me to forget what I say. I said that I would bear this matter in mind. A borrowing powers Bill will be coming along at some time and that will be the occasion for a debate on the steel industry. I note the concern of many hon. Members on this matter, and I shall bear that in mind.

Mr. Kinnock: When shall we have a chance soon to debate and make a final decision about radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the House?

Mr. Short: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that the report will be coming from the Services Committee in the very near future. I shall certainly put it on the Order Paper and arrange a short debate at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. John Davies: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed the report of the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs yesterday on the subject of future business for the Council of Ministers? If he has, he will have noticed the extraordinary concentration of subjects dealing with energy, all of which are of fundamental importance. As there has not been one of the six promised days this Session for a debate on European matters, would it not be appropriate to devote one such day to consideration of energy matters as they affect the Common Market?

Mr. Short: I realise the importance of this subject and I shall do the best I can about it. The House will spend the greater part of one day next week dealing with EEC matters.
This aspect of our business was discussed on Monday in the debate on procedure. It gives rise to complications. I have noticed the right hon. Gentleman's motion on the Order Paper. [That this House deplores the inadequacy of consideration of important EEC


measures, both in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House; and calls upon the Government, as a matter of urgency, to improve the timing, form and nature of such debates.]
It is easy to put such a motion down, but much more difficult to find time to discuss such matters. He has tabled a very criticial motion, but he has made no suggestion about how to find the additional time. This was one of the purposes of Monday's debate. I hope that it will be one of the matters dealt with by the Committee of Inquiry into Procedure and Practice. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important question and I shall do the best I can to arrange a debate.

Mr. Heffer: The House quite rightly has found time to debate devolution and economic problems in Scotland and Wales, even though there are Committees which could deal with these matters. We have a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs which tends to lead to subjects being displaced from the Floor of the House. Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate at the earliest possible moment on regional matters, economic and otherwise, in the North and the North-West? These regions are suffering very high levels of unemployment.

Mr. Short: I cannot promise such a debate in the very near future. It is generally agreed that the Regional Committee has permitted a great many more regional debates to take place. I believe that it debated the North-West only recently—

Mr. Heffer: It is a talking shop.

Mr. Short: If the Committee is a talking shop, the House is, too.

Mr. Kershaw: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 69 standing in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) to which an amendment has been tabled?
[That this House regrets the decision of Her Majesty's Government to increase fees for overseas students attending British universities and colleges; recognises that this will provide only a derisory increase in net revenue, but will cause serious hardship, particularly to students from developing countries and students in mid?

course; notes that other European countries admit a higher number of overseas students and yet charge them no discriminatory tuition fees; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take positive action to end the discrimination against overseas students.]
The motion deals with fees paid by overseas students. In view of the deep differences which exist on this important matter, will the right hon. Gentleman give time for a debate before long?

Mr. Short: I cannot offer time for a debate but, as I have said, I am proposing to have a debate on the White Paper on Public Expenditure between publication of the White Paper and the Budget. That would be an appropriate occasion on which to raise this matter.

Mr. Hardy: Does my right hon. Friend recall that last Friday a motion standing in my name on the subject of steel was not reached, largely because of repetitive contributions by Opposition Members—and that did not include the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)? Many of my hon. Friends are extremely concerned about the steel industry. May we have an assurance that the borrowing powers Bill will be before the House within a reasonable time?

Mr. Short: I realise the importance that my hon. Friend attaches to this matter. I have discussed it with him. I cannot say when the Bill will appear. It will certainly be before Easter. I shall do my best to make it as soon as possible so that we may have a debate on this important subject.

Mr. Peyton: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's forthcoming words to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) at the conclusion of his remarks in reply to the question about a European debate. May I take him back to the question of debates on economic affairs? Am I to understand that there is to be a debate first on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement which is expected on Thursday? Secondly, may we have a clear assurance that we shall have a debate on public expenditure at a decent interval before the Budget?

Mr. Short: I have already answered the right hon. Gentleman's last question


twice this afternoon. On his first point, I cannot offer a debate next week on the Chancellor's package. I understand that it will not require any parliamentary action. The debate on public expenditure will not be long after that, and I would have thought that it was there-fore an opportunity to debate its proposals.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note that we should like to await the Chancellor's statement and then we should almost certainly want a debate on the subject?

Mr. Short: That is fair enough. I think that the sensible thing to do is to await the Chancellor's statement. The right hon. Gentleman has a great many days in his pocket as well. Perhaps if we provide one day for public expenditure, he could also provide one.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Leader of the House consider providing time for a debate on agriculture, in view of the latest estimates released by the Meat and Livestock Commission, which indicate that we shall be producing 17 per cent. less beef in this country in 1976 and 7 per cent. less lamb?

Mr. Short: There is to be a debate on agriculture and EEC matters next week.

Dr. Edmund Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the Written Answer given to me on 3rd February by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government, who expressed the hope that the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Strategy Review would be debated by the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs? Will the Leader of the House ensure that this debate is held soon?

Mr. Short: I certainly realise the need to have a debate on this matter, and I shall arrange a debate on it. However, I think that we want a little time to allow hon. Members to study the Report rather more carefully.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the Leader of the House arrange to put down a motion next week to set up a Select Committee on Procedure, bearing in mind what he said in the debate on Monday—that if there were matters requiring attention he would set up a Committee—

and the reference that I have made to him, which your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, said was a suitable matter to go to a Select Committee on Procedure?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman has had correspondence with me about this matter. I shall certainly look at it. If there are matters to be referred to a Select Committee on Procedure, I shall propose setting up such a Committee.

Mr. Madden: Will my right hon. Friend say when the Secretary of State for Trade will make his promised statement on further measures designed to reduce the dumping of cheap foreign goods in Britain?

Mr. Short: No, Sir, but my right hon. Friend is on the Government Front Bench at present, and no doubt he has heard what my hon. Friend said on this occasion and last week and, I think, the previous week, too.

Mr. Boscawen: As the Government do not seem to be aware of the particularly grievous situation facing the construction and building industry in the South-West, will the Leader of the House allow a debate on this industry on the Floor of the House as early as possible?

Mr. Short: No, Sir. I cannot offer time in the near future, but this again would be a very suitable subject for any of the days that the Opposition have for general debates.

Mr. Rose: In view of the urgent problems highlighted by the Runnymede Trust and others, will my right hon. Friend say when the forthcoming Race Relations Bill will be introduced into the House, and will he give some sort of time scale for the fusion of the Race Relations Board with the Equal Opportunities Commission?

Mr. Short: That is part of the new arrangement under the Bill, but certainly the Bill will be introduced before Easter. I am sorry that I cannot give the precise date, but it will be before Easter.

Mr. Paul Dean: Does the Leader of the House recollect that the House passed a resolution last Friday calling for measures to alleviate the burdens on the self-employed and the small business? May I ask him on what day next week we can


expect a statement from the Government with a view to implementing that resolution of the House?

Mr. Short: I have announced that there will be a statement on Thursday, when we shall announce our measures to alleviate the burdens on the unemployed. Certainly the Chancellor of the Exchequer will bear in mind the resolution that was passed last week.

Mr. Lipton: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Services Committee which recommends the removal of Members' secretaries who are at present working in Westminster Hall to the Interview Floor, where they will never see daylight during working hours?

Mr. Short: As I understand it, this was approved a very long time ago, and the work is in hand now.

Mr. Tim Renton: The Lord President will be aware that in the debate on procedure on Monday a number of comments were passed on the public service. Will the Lord President find time for a debate in the House on the Civil Service—on its growth, its pay and pensions, and its relationship with Ministers?

Mr. Short: I cannot promise any time for that, but I notice that a Select Committee is about to carry out a study of the Civil Service.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Regional Affairs Committee, to which he referred earlier, is not attended by chief Ministers and that this is one of the main reasons why many of us feel that it is a waste of time to attend that Committee?

Mr. Short: These are Committees to which any Member of the House can go. The whole membership of the House can go along, and the debate is always answered by a Minister. However, if there are special difficulties about that, perhaps my hon. Friend will talk to me, and I shall be happy to see what I can do.

Mr. Grylls: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement on the Linwood settlement, because many hon. Members and people outside the House are curious to know how that is alleged to fall within the £6 limit?

Mr. Short: I shall certainly pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the many reports in the Press and the report on the radio this morning about the dumping of over 10,000 men's suits into this country from East Germany, at the ridiculous rate of £4·80 each? Is he aware of the effect on employment in West Yorkshire in the clothing and textile industries? Will he arrange an emergency debate on this matter next week?

Mr. Short: I cannot offer a debate about it, but my right hon. Friend has certainly seen these reports and he is investigating the matter urgently.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Lord President try to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish the cash limits for public expenditure in 1976–77 before we have the debate which he has promised on the public expenditure White Paper, so that that debate can be a fully informed debate?

Mr. Short: I think that the debate will be certainly a fully-informed debate. When the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper on public expenditure he will be very fully informed.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the earlier exchanges about the Falkland Islands. I wonder whether next week, on a topic that was not touched upon, he could arrange for a very short statement to be made about the completion of a genuinely international airport there, capable of taking international traffic, which would do a great deal to cool the situation and would be a method of maintaining communications other than by sea. One could think of no quicker way to establish a better situation. May we have a short statement saying how close we are to establishing there a genuinely international airport?

Mr. Short: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been interested in this matter for a long time. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he has said.

Sir George Young: When is it proposed to re-establish the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage?

Mr. Short: I am looking at this matter at present and at the possibility of making it rather wider, but certainly I hope to have something to say about it in the very near future

CONCORDE

The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Concorde operations to the United States. As the House will be aware, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Coleman, announced yesterday his decision on the application by British Airways and Air France for up to two flights each per day to John F. Kennedy Airport, New York, and one each per day to Dulles International Airport, Washington. He allowed their application in full, for a trial period not to exceed 16 months. This will start from the date of the first flight. He has specified a number of conditions for these services, but none of these appears to present any substantial difficulty.
Mr. Coleman has reached this decision following the most exhaustive scrutiny of the arguments for and against allowing Concorde into the United States. He himself chaired a public hearing on 5th January, in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry and a senior representative of the French Government took part. The decision, which runs to some 60 pages of closely argued text, is an impressive and balanced assessment of the environmental aspects of Concorde's operations. I have placed a copy of the decision in the Library.
I am sure the House will welcome this decision to permit Concorde to fly direct to New York and Washington from London and Paris. The way is now open for regular supersonic services across the North Atlantic. I believe services during this period will demonstrate that they will have a minimal effect on the environment.
British Airways have made formal application to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey today and have reminded them of the great importance of speedy decision. They are also arrang-

ing immediate discussions on the practical details of the operations with the Federal Aviation Administration.
British Airways aim to begin service in May—provided, of course, that there are no new obstacles. Officials will be discussing early next week with the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration the monitoring programme on noise and ozone, which Mr. Coleman has said should be carried out. We are already working with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on a programme to measure chemical constituents of the stratosphere, using Concorde for this purpose.
Concorde entered commercial service to Bahrain and Rio de Janeiro on 21st January. We now look forward to Concorde carrying people across the North Atlantic in just over three hours—half the time of present subsonic services.

Mr. Higgins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision of the Secretary of Transportation will be widely welcomed on both sides of the House and by people outside, just as the technical achievement of those responsible for Concorde has caught the imagination of the public?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Coleman's statement that the rules of fair play demand that Concorde be given a chance to disprove its critics is important, and that it is to be hoped that the New York authorities will now take an equally balanced view on this subject?
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether any necessary court action in the United States will be the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government or of British Airways?
Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the decision will help negotiations on other routes?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a supersonic scheduled service, in the bicentennial year will strengthen the traditional commercial links between the United States and this country, and, indeed, assist our trade in other products?

Mr. Shore: Concerning the hon. Gentleman's last point, it is indeed a


happy coincidence that the first transatlantic supersonic services should come into effect in this bicentennial year of the formation and independence of the United States of America. It shows that we are perhaps closer together than ever before—at least in one sense, and a very welcome one.
I also thank the hon. Gentleman for giving voice to the broad welcome—which I know is shared very generally in the House—at Secretary Coleman's decision. I entirely agree that the rules of fair play have obviously been honoured in that decision. Those who have had the chance of going through the judgment will, I am sure, concur with that.
I very much hope that all other authorities in the United States which will be concerned with subsequent decisions affecting the operation of Concorde will bring to bear on their decisions the same scrupulous objectivity and judgment that Secretary Coleman himself has shown.
It is not for me to anticipate any court actions, but I think that British Airways would be the main party to any actions if they were brought against the airlines themselves. On the other hand, it is possible that actions might be brought against the decision of Secretary Coleman, in which case it would be presumably for the Federal Transportation Department to justify its own decision.
I am quite certain that the determination of Secretary Coleman will be helpful in assisting us in negotiations with other countries in order to obtain landing rights.

Mr. Penhaligon: The House welcomes the decision that Concorde may land, after so much money has been spent on achieving flight. Will the Minister comment on the United States' restrictions on supersonic flight? Will he confirm that £8,000 was paid to residents in Cornwall during the supersonic test flights which took place? Consequently, will he ban commercial supersonic flight over the land mass of the British Isles? Will he also confirm that the South-West is likely to be in Concorde's flight path to the United States of America?

Mr. Shore: I cannot answer the second question yet. Obviously, the London to New York and London to Washington routes do not involve any supersonic over?

flying of the United Kingdom. If routes are developed which affect the United Kingdom—in that overflight of a part of the United Kingdom is an essential part of such flight—clearly we shall have to examine the situation more closely. I would not declare a closed mind—it would be quite wrong of me to do soon that possibility.
As to the United States, the judgment concerns the right to land in two airports in the United States. It does not include supersonic flight over the continent of the United States.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news he has just formally announced to the House will be widely welcomed by the great mass of the British people, who, unlike the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), are much more concerned than he is with the health of the British aviation industry and also of British industry in general?
I also express the hope that the excellent Mr. Coleman will be emulated very shortly by the new governmental authorities in Australia.

Mr. Shore: I thank my hon. Friend for giving his own endorsement of and welcome to the decision. I believe that it is not only extremely important for the future development of Britain's air services but also very helpful for the whole future of the British aviation industry.
I join my hon. Friend in his wish and hope that the Australian authorities—who are also considering the environmental impact and effects of Concorde—will have the opportunity to look at this very careful American judgment before coming to their own conclusions.

Mr. Tebbit: May I put three questions to the right hon. Gentleman" First, will he consider posting to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) one of the published routes of the flight paths to the United States proposed for Concorde, so that the hon. Gentleman will be able to find out whether it goes over his constituency? Everybody else knows the answer.
Secondly, may I press the right hon. Gentleman again on the issue of who would pay for any legal actions which might arise in the United States as a consequence of Mr. Secretary Coleman's decisions? It would seem improper to


many of us if the burden of seeing Concorde operate into North America were to fall upon British Airways in terms of legal costs.
Thirdly, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the remarks he made about not having a totally closed mind on the subject of supersonic overflying routes in the United Kingdom, he has broken some new ground. Will he confirm that that was indeed what he meant to do and that he is saying that he would be prepared to look on its merits at any application to overtly the United Kingdom supersonically?

Mr. Shore: I was not expecting this to come as an immediate issue, but I certainly confirm that it would be the duty of any Government to look carefully at any proposal put forward. I shall say neither more nor less on that subject at the present time.
As for the hon. Gentleman's request that I should send the published routes of Concorde to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), I am willing to see that the hon. Member receives that information. In view of the comments he made, the hon. Member would be very well advised to read the report, which contains an enormous amount of information, particularly dealing with many of the anxieties which, no doubt, he has expressed on behalf of his constituents as to the actual effects of Concorde flying over land and coming in over built-up areas.
Concerning legal expenses and who should pay for them, I shall not give a commitment at the moment but I assure the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) that I shall look sympathetically at this problem.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware not only of the pride that the achievement of Concorde's flight to the United States will give to the country generally but of the great satisfaction it will give to the Concorde workers in Bristol—which, I may say for the benefit of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), is also in the South-West?
Will my right hon. Friend also say whether he thinks that this gives any prospect for the future of extra Concordes now being manufactured?

Mr. Shore: The fact that we have, through Secretary Coleman's judgment, opened the gates to the North American continent is the most important single step that has yet been taken in establishing the success of Concorde. Therefore, the possibilities of the general success of the Concorde programme are increased. I shall not be taken further on that road at the moment because I do not believe in looking too far ahead, but obviously we shall all feel great satisfaction at this further step forward. We certainly share the pride that my hon. Friend has expressed—a pride shared also by all those who have been engaged in building this remarkable aeroplane.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members be as brief as they can? I hope to call them all, but there is a Ten-Minute Bill to come before the short Welsh debate and then there is a short Scottish debate, so the House should be fair.

Mr. Warren: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will give the widest possible publicity to the findings of the technical studies that he has mentioned so as to alleviate public concern as rapidly as possible about the environmental impact of Concorde?

Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion, which is a very good one. In view of the many exaggerated and unnecessary anxieties expressed and built up about Concorde, we have a public duty to make that information available.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever happens in the case of New York, there will be no further legal obstacles to prevent Concorde from flying into Washington? Can he explain the significance of the odd period of 16 months for the experiment? Third, can he convey to British Airways the fact that, while many of us are glad that they will be able to fly Concorde into the United States, we are a little puzzled that after so many years of anticipation it will still take three months to initiate services?

Mr. Shore: First of all, I can give no guarantees about legal obstacles. There is


great ingenuity in the resort to legal remedies and I have no doubt that people are studying the possibility in the United States at present. However, I hope that they will be overcome.
The reason for the period of 16 months is made clear in Secretary Coleman's judgment—one year for a real period of operation in all seasons of the year, followed by a period of appraisal in the light of the information gathered during that 12 months' operation. As for the question of the three months' delay in initiating services, obviously a number of important matters have to be arranged with the FAA and the airport authorities. In addition, we are having a build-up of Concorde deliveries. We shall receive the fourth Concorde in July or August of this year.

Mr. John Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge—I am sure he will—that this is a major milestone on a triumphant industrial co-operative project beween France and ourselves? In that light, would he kindly reassure the House that any action which is being taken to further the interests of Concorde in the United States or elsewhere is taken in the fullest agreement with, and with the fullest help of, the French Government?

Mr. Shore: I think that it is a milestone in the onward journey of Concorde, which has been a long one and by no means an easy one. I certainly subscribe to that view and also to the view expressed in the Financial Times editorial about a major triumph not only for BAC but for British Airways and Air France as well. We shall, of course, keep in close touch with the French as our partners in this endeavour.

Mr. Pattie: Taking the onward journey of Concorde a stage further, would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell us what the situation is at the moment in the achievement of overflying rights for Concorde's routes to Johannesburg and Melbourne?

Mr. Shore: Johannesburg is not one of the priority routes. The next step for Concorde is from Bahrain to Singapore, and Singapore to Australia. We are having discussions with all those concerned in the overflying and landing rights on that route.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that for some people this decision merely puts off the evil day when we shall have to decide what to do when the 16 Concordes have finished production? Will he not accept that this is a huge financial disaster and not a technological triumph at all and that our ability and expertise, great though they are in this matter, should be put into other affairs so that we can develop things which people will really use? Since this decision to permit Concorde to enter America is only a temporary one, has he considered what will happen after the 16 months if the aircraft is not allowed to enter America again?

Mr. Shore: There can always be arguments about the best way of using £1,000 million worth of resources or whatever it may be. But having made the decision and produced this splendid aircraft, as it undoubtedly is, I can see no point in my hon. Friend's observation at this stage. I genuinely believe now that the prospect has been greatly enhanced of the success of Concorde in commercial service. I believe that Mr. Secretary Coleman's judgment in this respect has been a milestone.

Mr. Jessel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American decision will not be universally welcome among communities living around Heathrow, which already suffer acutely from aircraft noise? Will the Government take the interests of those people rather more seriously in future than they have done in the past—for example, with their abandonment of the Maplin plan? Will he give a categoric assurance that in no circumstances will Concorde be allowed to take off or land at night—a condition being imposed by the Americans at their end, bearing in mind that their night hours are slightly different? Will the Government do what they can to get the aircraft industry to produce a quieter type of Concorde?

Mr. Shore: Let me first give the categoric assurance for which the hon. Gentleman asks. There will be no night landings or take-offs by Concorde from Heathrow. We have already made that clear and I wish to re-emphasise the point today. Of course, I understand that those living close to airports will always react


against what they fear to be an increase in aircraft noise, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in the judgment of all those who have studied this matter carefully, the actual impact of Concorde, as distinct from the general impact of aircraft noise at these airports, is indeed minimal.

Mr. Adley: While one congratulates the Secretary of State on his robust activities recently and Mr. Coleman on his refusal to be brow-beaten by the inspired fantasies of the United States anti-Concorde industry, will the right hon. Gentleman apply his mind to the problem which will be faced shortly if there are court cases as to whether British Airways and Air France can fly into the United States while those cases are pending, if they are brought, or whether the flights will be in danger of being held up indefinitely while the anti-Concorde industry deliberately prolongs that activity? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman remind my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) that on the inaugural flight of Concorde his Department received two complaints about the noise?

Mr. Shore: I am sure that the House will be interested in that last point, which I confirm. As for the question of court actions which might be taken in the United States, we are still dealing with a hypothetical circumstance but we hope that any court would deal with the matter expeditiously. It does not necessarily follow that all operations would be sus-

pended pending a decision by any such court.

Sir T. Kitson: How many flights will be flown by British Airways and how many by Air France? Will they be split fifty-fifty?

Mr. Shore: The rights which have been accorded are entirely equal as between Air France and British Airways—two Concordes each daily into JFK and one each into Dulles, Washington. How the airlines use those flights is something which they will obviously discuss; it has not yet been finally determined.

Sir Raymond Gower: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson), may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what arrangement or agreement has been entered into between British Airways and Air France about future applications for routes in North America and South America or, indeed, in other parts of the world? Has an arrangement been made whereby each organisation will apply in one part of America—one in South America, say, and the other in North America—or is this all unplanned?

Mr. Shore: There have been considerable discussions on this matter over a long period. The submission to the United States Administration was a joint submission by British Airways and Air France to Secretary Coleman. Certain routes have attracted the French Government and Air France, and others have proved more attractive to British Airways and to us. But we are in touch with each other on these matters.

SWIMMING POOLS (SAFETY REGULATIONS)

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide safety regulations covering the use of privately owned swimming pools made available for public use.
I wish to do this quite simply by extending the powers of local authorities under Section 233(1) of the Public Health Act 1936 so as to require the proprietors of swimming pools used by the public in what I describe as an ancillary capacity, but for which no separate charge is made, to abide by the model byelaws now applying to public swimming baths.
The typical example that I wish to cover is a pool at an hotel or holiday camp. I have no doubt that the vast majority of pools at these establishments are well managed and properly supervised but, regrettably, there are exceptions, and too many fatal accidents have occurred in the past few years for the present situation to he allowed to continue. 
Unfortunately, the exact number of deaths is not officially recorded, as I found when I tabled a Question in the autumn of 1973, but the total for all types of pools is no fewer than 59. Of this figure, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has calculated that seven occurred in school, hotel or purely private pools, and as many as 29 in pools not classified as open to the general public. This is, therefore, a serious matter. and one that ought to be tackled.
I should like to quote from a pamphlet issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Referring to hotel and holiday camp pools, it says:
Generally speaking hotel and holiday camp management seems to take scant regard of the need for trained pool supervisors and rules to be laid down. This especially applies to open air pools in hotels, where guests may be few in number at any one time … It is the view of RoSPA's Water Safety Organiser that legislation which would enable local authorities to make byelaws in respect of this type of pool should be considered. In the case of one such recent drowning accident the manager admitted that there had been no organised supervision in operation.

The pamphlet goes on to say that the Medical Officer of Health of Great Yarmouth reported:
The particular tragic accident of which you write occurred in cloudy water. The pool has had problems recently with algae and it would seem as though this was the cause of the turbidity. The matter is, at the moment, being energetically discussed with the Public Analyst, as there is some controversy about the chlorine levels that we require in pools, including pools in the town with no problems, and this particular pool",
which was in a holiday camp.
This paragraph of the pamphlet concludes:
My personal view is that many pools are left in the care of people who, however willing, do not realise that a certain amount of expertise is required in their management.
I am aware that since as long ago as July 1974 the Home Office has had a working party considering the whole aspect of water safety, including swimming pools, but in view of the increasing number of tragedies, and as no solution has been reached, and because I suspect that it may be some time before any decision is made, I wish to introduce the Bill. I also understand that the Department of the Environment accepts that new legislation is required to extend the byelaw control to cover the kind of semi-private pool that I have described.
I have been prompted into action by one local authority in my constituency which attracts a large holiday trade in the summer months. This is the South Wight Borough Council which reacted promptly and rightly following a tragic death in my constituency at a holiday camp last summer.
Here I would like to pay tribute to Mr. T. E. Payne of Erith in Kent, the father of the unfortunate boy who drowned, who particularly requested that measures be taken to bring about greater control of the management of such pools. He has personally drawn up a list of 17 matters which he considers should be the minimum standards required by law of the proprietors of these pools, and I hope that in due course every one of these provisions will be included in the regulations.
In the hope, however, that the Government will give favourable consideration to my Bill today, I seek as an interim measure purely to extend the model byelaws relating to safety under Section 233


of the Public Health Act 1936 so that they cover the pools that I have described and thus go a long way to meet the points made by Mr. Payne, including proper supervision, regular cleaning, provision of handrails, and life-saving apparatus.
I also seek to provide that the responsibility for seeing that these byelaws are honoured falls directly on the environmental health officers of district and borough councils throughout the country.
Finally, let me make it abundantly clear that my Bill does not affect the purely private pool within the curtelage of a private residence.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Stephen Ross, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mrs. Lynda Chalker, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. David Penhaligon, Mr. Cyril Smith, Mr. John Tomlinson and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

SWIMMING POOLS (SAFETY REGULATIONS)

Mr. Stephen Ross accordingly presented a Bill to provide safety regulations covering the use of privately owned swimming pools made available for public use: and the same was read a First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th May and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]—Considered

Orders of the Day — WALES (ECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURE)

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the failure of successive Governments in not creating an industrial infrastructure for Wales which includes a road, rail and air communications system and which would make possible the development of a balanced Welsh economy.
The situation that we hope to uncover in this short debate on the Welsh economic infrastructure is a sorry one. There are few features to lighten the record of misgovernment in Wales, unless one includes good intentions. We have had endless promises of jam tomorrow but scarcely ever jam today. So it was in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and so it is to this day.
For two decades Wales was submitted to a policy of transference of labour which uprooted 500,000 Welsh people and provided work for them in England. Our rich little country has for two generations been depopulated and bled white of her people, and still after generations of ruinous migration unemployment in Wales is worse than in any region or country in this island. Between 1925 and 1975 the population of England grew by 28·9 per cent. The population of Wales grew by 0·8 per cent., and that despite the influx of scores of thousands of retired people from England.
The London Establishment will not face up to the basic cause of a situation that has been destroying a nation, because the cause is in the structure of this unitary, centralist metropolis-dominated State which it is determined to maintain. It has always claimed that the Welsh situation was a temporary distortion. Everything in the Welsh garden will be beautiful, so the story has been, when the great upturn in the English economy comes, or when we have true Socialism, as we still hear from some supporters of this eighth Labour Government. As we saw in the devolution debate, Left and


Right are united in defence of the present State structure. The first of many to congratulate the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on what he called his splendid speech "was the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist). When it comes to fundamental structural change, Members of the Government party can claim that they are all conservative unionists now.
The structural change that Wales needs is a radical decentralisation of power. If the declaration made in Cardiff by Lord Rosebery as Prime Minister in 1895, and by this House three months later, in favour of home rule for Wales as well as for Ireland and Scotland had been implemented, the economy of Wales today would probably be as strong and the civilisation of Wales as secure as those of any one of the five Scandinavian countries. Wales today would be living a full national life.
It pays the Establishment to pay lip service to Welsh nationhood, to acknowledge that Wales is a nation. But what the Establishment is determined to do is to prevent Wales acting as a nation, making her own decisions, taking her own initiatives, fashioning the conditions of her national environment. If Wales is a nation, here economy should be designed to provide a strong basis for the life of the national community, and the Welsh people should have the political power to design their own economy. Economics should always be subordinate to politics, and politics should also be surbordinate to social needs, such as creating in Wales a national community that is fair, just and Welsh.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if he and his party achieve what they are setting out to achieve Wales will have for the foreseeable future a one-party, Socialist Government? Has he reflected on the economic consequences of that for the Principality?

Mr. Evans: I have stated my belief in the House before that within 10 years the strongest party in Wales will be Plaid Cymru, and the Welsh Labour Party—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)rose—

Mr. Evans: Just as the Labour Party replaced the Liberal Party, we are due to replace the Labour Party.
The Welsh nation is today, as it has been for centuries, subordinated to English economics and politics. Economically, the function of Wales has been to supply England with raw materials and the products of heavy industries and to be a pool of labour. Geographically, it has been to provide the citizens of the English conurbations with a lung in her beautiful but depopulated countryside. Politically, her function has been to contribute to England's might and prestige. Welshmen were treated as economic men, as mobile, abstract beings. But they are not abstract beings. They are Welshmen, members of a Welsh nation which lives where it has always lived in the ancient homeland of Wales. The people of Wales have their roots, their identity, their history, their traditions, values, and civilisations, all of which are essential to fullness of human life.
We in Wales should be in a position to create a balanced economy which would adequately sustain the people, the community and the civilisation of Wales, but this has never been attempted by the British State. Until recently it scorned the very idea of a Welsh economy. What it has done in the past 50 years is to respond to chronic Welsh deprivation by the palliative of regional planning. What is the result of this palliative? It is our scandously high unemployment rate and our scandalously low economic employment activity rate. The measure of the success of 50 years of regional planning in Wales is that there are today 115,000 fewer jobs for men in the country than there were 10 years ago. But still we hear the parrot cry that it will be much better in the future. Where is the evidence that centralist, metropolitan-dominated Government is anywhere near a solution?
Wales has for generations been conned into a belief that this old, imperial, centralist structure serves her best interests. The time has come when the conning will have to stop. The only effective planning that Wales will ever see is planning by the Welsh people through their own elected Government. They alone have sufficient incentive to do the job.
Basic to a balanced economic development is economic infrastructure. The condition of the Welsh infrastructure demonstrates conclusively that London has never had the will to create a strong Welsh economy. Nothing in the infrastructure is more vital than transport communications. The Government's current attitude to Rhoose Airport typifies the attitude to communications in Wales. Wales has not even the sketchiest air transport system. Rhoose should have been built up as a national airport, but in the Government's view it is not
indispensable to the national air system".
That is, of course, a reference to the British system. From the standpoint of the Welsh national system there is no more indispensable airport than Rhoose. It should he the focal point of the network of domestic services linking Southern Wales with the other main centres of population and industry throughout Britain.
Between 1964 and 1974 the seven civil aerodromes received £25,150,000 in financial aid from the Government. Sumburgh received £6…8 million. In 1974 and up to October last year the Government made grants of £15,864,000 to airports in Scotland, but not a penny went to Wales.

Mr. Fred Evans: We have all fought for the preservation of Rhoose Airport, but with the new development proposed at Newport will the hon. Gentleman's party be backing Newport or Rhoose?

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I am speaking now of the needs of Rhoose as a national airport for Wales, but it is not only Rhoose that should be helped. A number of airports in Wales should be helped, including some smaller ones such as Swansea, Haverfordwest and Valley, and there should be a small airport in Aberystwyth.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Hear, hear.

Mr. Evans: The matter is very important for the movement of freight and passengers. Nine out of 10 potential air passengers in Wales have expressed through a public opinion poll their desire to use a Welsh airport.
The road system is almost equally inadequate. Investment in Welsh roads lags far behind that in English roads, and still more behind investment in continental countries. The system is so inadequate that Welsh industrialists more often than not state it as one of their biggest difficulties. Wales has about 10 per cent. of British road mileage but it has never had a bigger proportion of expenditure on Britain's roads than about 7 per cent. The proportion in 1964 was 5…5 per cent. and since then it has been 6…6 per cent., 6…6 per cent., 6…8 per cent., 4…6 per cent., 4…8 per cent., 4…5 per cent., 4·8 per cent., 6…6 per cent., 7…3 per cent. and, in 1974, 6…2 per cent.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that successive Governments have been right to develop east-west communications—for example, by road across the Severn Bridge—in the interests of the economy of South Wales, rather than north-south communications?

Mr. Evans: I believe that if the money spent on the Severn Bridge had been spent on a road from Cardiff to Merthyr Tydfil that would have been of much greater benefit to all Welsh valleys with their half a million people.

Mr. Roberts: Where would the M4 go?

Mr. Evans: Expenditure per mile on Welsh roads during the past 10 years has been about half, or a little above half, that on English roads.
The motorway situation reflects the Welsh road situation as a whole. England has 1,045 miles and Wales has 27 miles of motorway. For Britain one mile in every 211 is motorway. In West Germany the figures are one in every 84, in Belgium one in every 92, in Holland one in every 61 and in Italy one in every 57, and in Wales one mile in every 726 is motorway. Holland is exactly twice the size of Wales. It has 850 miles of motorway in its 31,296 miles of trunk roads as compared with the 27 miles of motorway and 1,018 miles of trunk roads in Wales.
Wales has about the same mileage of trunk roads as it had mileage of Roman roads 1,800 years ago. The estimate for 1973 for dual carriageway trunk roads was 80 miles for Wales. England has


14 times our length of dual carriageway trunk roads. In addition, our roads are not always designed to ensure the kind of balanced economic development that we need in the Welsh economy. The close relationship between the two needs no emphasis. For half a century the Government have been pressed to build a major north-south highway which, as a spine road, would unite Wales and have other major roads running off it from east to west.
In 1968, in answer to a Question which I tabled, the Government estimated that the cost of a dual carriageway running from Cardiff via Merthyr Tydfil to near Wrexham and across to Caernarvon would be about £110 million. The first part of that road as far as Cilfyndd has been splendidly built.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that to impose the kind of urban motorway system he has described on Wales, which is a quite different country geographically from England, would completely destroy the kind of society that he so insistently claims to defend?

Mr. Evans: I am not seeking to impose an urban system on the whole of Wales. I am speaking currently of a road from north to south. I remember contesting a parliamentary election in 1945 in the county of Merioneth when the Labour programme included two points. One was to establish a Welsh broadcasting corporation and the other was to establish a major north-south highway. Such a highway is necessary to the development of the depopulated hinterland of Wales. However, the idea has now been dismissed. The Government, speaking of the parts of Wales which they in their policies have denuded of people, say that there are no industries there and, therefore, there is no justification for a major road.
How different was the vision in Italy which caused the Autostrada del Sole to be built over barren hills from the North to the poverty-stricken South of Italy. The authority said that there was no industry there and, therefore, it must have a great road. That is the right way of looking at the situation. I hope that the coming of the national Assembly to Cardiff will provide an additional reason, apart from ease of transport, for building

this major road between the north and the south and that the Government will re-examine the reasons for this long-needed road.
Lastly I turn to the railways, where the decimation of what was once a fine national system speaks for itself. In the early sixties, when I gathered the figures—possibly it is true today—the Southern Welsh Region was the most prosperous region of the whole of the British Rail network. That did not prevent it from being savaged at least as badly as any other region and perhaps worse than most. However, no one can honestly doubt that if Wales had had a Parliament in those days, or even a national transport authority, the attacks would have been far more restrained.
There is nothing that we need more in relation to Welsh transport than a Welsh transport board committed to the integration, modernisation, expansion and revitalisation of the Welsh transport system, both freight and passenger. The welfare of Wales would dominate the thought and policies of a Welsh board. However, it is very far from the thoughts of the gentlemen sitting in London on the British Railways Board or in Whitehall, where the road lobby has such complete domination.
I take the matter of electrification of lines as typifying the situation. Britain is not in the vanguard of railway electrification. Only some 17 per cent. of the British Rail network is electrified. It lags behind almost every other Western European country. France is ahead of us with 24 per cent., Western Germany has 28 per cent., Italy has 48 per cent. and mountainous Switzerland has 98·4 per cent. of its railways electrified. However, for the purposes of this debate the most relevant question is: how many of the nearly 2,200 miles of electrified railway on this island are found in Wales? The answer is that there is not one mile of electrified railway in Wales. There has not been one mile since the old Mumbles line closed down.
Wales is a great exporter of huge quantities of electricity but not one mile of Welsh railway line has been electrified. Yet there are some people who claim that this centralist, unitary, metropolitan-dominated Government do better for Wales than a Welsh Parliament would.


Have they realised that since the Euston to Manchester and Liverpool route was electrified in 1966 the time was cut by an hour and a half and the traffic has increased by about 200 per cent.? Non-electrification of Welsh railways is reductio ad absurdum of the system which misgoverns our potentially great little country.
What can Wales look forward to under central control? What other than more closures and further decimation of our surviving fragments? I appeal to the Government not to allow one further mile of railway line in Wales to be closed until at least we have a Welsh Assembly on our soil and a Welsh Development Agency to review the situation.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: We all like the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) but it is difficult to take him seriously as a politician when he suggests that within 10 years his party will be the leading party in Wales. I recall first seeing him in 1966 when he came to this House and when he made the same claim. It is said of Billy Graham that he has many texts and one sermon. The same must apply to the hon. Gentleman, because whichever peg he has in the House it is the same dreary old sermon that is pulled out of the rather travel-stained bag.
It is good but difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman, because he has his feet firmly planted in the air and is far from the realities of Wales and the real needs of Wales which we see around us. Certainly the motion that he moved is correct in stressing the importance of communications as part of our industrial infrastructure and, by implication, the key rôle of communications as an industrial investment incentive. I recall being impressed by a survey of industrialists carried out by the Swansea District Council, which showed that access to a good transportation network was one of the major factors for those industrialists in terms of investment decisions.
South Wales is the closest development area to London. The theme of all reports on the Welsh economy—I have checked from the first Report in 1920 by the Ministry of Health South Wales Regional Survey Commit?

tee to "Wales: The Way Ahead" and the Welsh Council Report for 1972—is the vital impact of the roadway system on the economy. "Wales: The Way Ahead" in 1967 stated that
Good roads are one of the keys to the future prosperity of Wales.
Financial investment incentives can be given and can be taken away. Roads are there for good and, therefore, have a major and permanent impact on investment decisions. I join the hon. Member for Carmarthen in asking for greater public investment in Wales in both roads and railways, because of our greater need in employment terms, our lower activity rate, and other factors.
I ask, too, for greater co-ordination of transport facilities within the Principality and a greater awareness of the social implications of communications for our communities. Just as in our debates on devolution the possibility of rational discussion is complicated by the separatist framework within which the hon. Gentleman and his Friends operate—thinking of Wales as a siege economy, a self-contained unit, and naïvely suggesting self-government as the answer to our deep-seated problems—so is rational discussion of Welsh problems complicated by that unusual perspective.
We all understand the fear of railwaymen about future services in Wales—fears on which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends trade. Yet the railwaymen of my acquaintance have a deep-seated trust in the Labour Government They know, for example, that between 1964 and 1970 only five miles of railway track in Wales were closed, compared with 800 miles over the 13 years of the previous Conservative Administration. There are no hard facts on which to rely in relation to the future of the rail network, and it is wrong to fan the fears of railwaymen by speculation. When the new proposals are made, my hon. Friends and I will insist that full consideration and due and proper weight shall be given to the social and environmental factors.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen deplored the Rhoose decision, and so do I. The Welsh Labour Group of Members of Parliament pressed the Government very hard on that. The Welsh Labour Group is also convinced that the decision on the Bristol West Dock Scheme has


been adverse to the future of the docks in the Bristol Channel.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is my hon. Friend fully acquainted with the facts? Does he recall that, despite several applications from Bristol, the then Labour Government rejected the scheme on social and economic grounds. When the Conservative Government came to power in 1970, they gave the go-ahead for the scheme. Now that costs are escalating, the Bristol ratepayers are worried and wish that they had never gone ahead with the scheme. When the scheme becomes fully operational every port on Severnside will be in jeopardy. That is the disaster that has been caused by that decision of the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. Anderson: I know what a strong fight has been put up by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) for all the South Wales ports. It is sad that he should have been proved right after his long and hard-fought opposition.

Sir Raymond Gower: I do not dissent from the main view held by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), but is he aware that the Bristol scheme is the result not of a Government decision but of a Private Bill which was introduced by the Bristol Corporation and supported by the former Secretary of State for Industry, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)?

Mr. Roy Hughes: That is not true.

Sir Raymond Gower: It is true. The hon. Gentleman should refer to Hansard if he is in doubt.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Mr. Roy Hughes rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind hon. Members that the debate was originally planned to finish by about 6 o'clock. We shall obviously have to extend that time, but it will assist in time allocation if hon. Members who seek to catch the Chair's eye do not make interventions.

Mr. Anderson: The Bristol development went ahead with the blessing of the then Government, and the large-scale investment that has to be recouped is causing considerable difficulty in South Wales ports.
The word "balance" is stressed in the motion. I fear that "balance", in Welsh National usage, is defined as "unifying the nation"—this was stressed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen—and, therefore, distorting the needs of Wales. For me, "balance" principally means speeding up communications with our major markets. For the Welsh Nationals north-south links are important, whereas for those who are concerned with the economy of Wales the east-west links are important. I accept the conclusion contained on page 20 of the Welsh Council Report of 1974, "Roads in Wales" which says:
We look for simultaneous application of resources on the two major areas requiring attention, namely, the east-west communication line in North Wales and the east-west communication line in South Wales. We consider that the connection between North and South Wales should be a second priority.
Our real problems lie in achieving a social balance. I am especially concerned about the balance of public expenditure on subsidising bus routes serving new estates away from city centres in South Wales, and also the problem of isolated communities. We need to look carefully at the isolation of low-income rural communities in the Principality. The South Wales Transport Company has applied for a fourth increase in bus fares in the past year. Surely that cannot go on. Again, there must be a balance in assisting communities that are away from the valley mouths—where the main economic developments must come—with their long journeys to work. As an incentive for existing communities we must consider either direct subsidies or a tax allowance for those who have to travel, to make sure that the communities in our valleys are maintained.
The balance between public and private investment is wrong. For example, nationalised industries in tinplate and coil traffic to and from Tostre, Velindre and Abbey use private hauliers instead of British Rail.
The theme of the motion is neglect. I shall put forward what I believe to be a contrary and positive case. I salute the wisdom and the courage of the Secretary of State in giving priority to the M4 at the expense of expenditure on other major trunk road schemes in Wales. Swansea Bay City, as opposed to the former separate townships of Neath and


Port Talbot, with a population of more than one-third of a million people, is possibly further away from the national motorway network than is any other unit of comparable size in the United Kingdom. That is particularly important because of the potential development of Celtic Sea oil. We need immediate action, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ensured that.
I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will update the timetable of the M4. Will he tell us what he now believes to be the target date, and will he confirm that "full steam ahead" will be ordered on the M4 development proceeding into South Wales and opening up the area for industrial development, in spite of the climate of cut-back in public expenditure?
The picture painted by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, of the railways in Wales being a neglected backyard of the rail system, is far from the truth. I shall briefly give one or two facts in support of that contention. In October this year high-speed trains are to be introduced between Swansea and London. It will be the first scheduled service of high-speed trains anywhere in the United Kingdom. The journey time from London to Newport will be one hour 32 minutes, which, with the Coldra junction of the motorway network between the Midlands and South Wales, will make the Newport/Cardiff area an excellent one for industrial development. The London-Cardiff journey time is one hour 46 minutes, and the journey time from London to Swansea is 2 hours 44 minutes. We heard nothing about that development in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
A development of major importance to the area that I represent took place in March 1975, when the new airbrake network in South Wales was introduced on three important routes—namely, Swansea to Warrington, Swansea to East Anglia and Swansea to Willesden. The airbrake network is operated by a new type of general freight vehicle which operates at speeds up to 75 m.p.h. Far from Wales being a neglected backyard, it is the second area in Britain to see the introduction of this key technological change. Further, it is hoped to introduce next month the largest freight train on the whole of the British Rail network. It

will run from Port Talbot to Llanwern. It will consist of 27 wagons of 100 tons gross weight. It is hoped that it will be hauled by three locomotives. It is a development of major importance to Wales in both passenger and freight sectors. It was neglected in the partial view that we heard from the hon. Gentleman.
The developments to which I have referred are important, in that they allow us to demonstrate to prospective industrialists how much shorter the journey time now is between the major markets in Wales, and how much easier is access to those markets. Road and rail barriers have been overcome as a result of these developments.
Of course, we can criticise failings. My right hon. and hon. Friends have deplored Rhoose and the dock development. But Wales needs more St. Pauls, and all we have are Jeremiahs from Plaid Cymru. Too many people are raising scare stories and relying on speculation. It does a grave disservice to Wales to paint such a negative picture. If Plaid Cymru Members are concerned about our economic and social future they should join us as ambassadors for Wales, publicising the positive advantages of Wales to industrialists, such as the shortening of journey times. Let them cease selling Wales short.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Like the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), I find it difficult to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). I notice that the hon. Gentleman gave us no word of explanation as to where the resources were to come from for the isolationist development of communications in Wales that he envisages.
The motion attacks the Conservative Party among others. My party, in government and in opposition has consistently stressed the importance of improving the Welsh infrastructure both as a means of promoting the existing economy and in atracting new business enterprises. Therefore, we cannot accept that the charge of failure should be levelled at the Conservative Administration. That administration had a first-class record of achievement in improving the infrastructure and establishing communication systems.
During our period of office expenditure on roads in Wales was nearly doubled, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) anticipated when in the Welsh Grand Committee on 15th December 1971 he said:
The total expenditure on Welsh roads, which was £37·8 million in 1969–70—and that is at 1971 survey prices—is now expected to increase from over £53 million in 1971–72 to nearly £62 million in 1972–73, and will reach nearly £70 million in 1975–76. I repeat that all those figures are at 1971 survey prices. I think that the Committee will agree that this is a pretty big increase."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee; 15th December 1971, c. 5.]
Indeed, it was a very large increase in expenditure on roads.
If the hon. Gentleman considers the relevant figures for the Conservative Government that were in office until 1964, he will find that per capita expenditure on roads in Wales was nearly twice as much as in the rest of the United Kingdom. During our years of government between 1970 and 1974, expenditure turned out to be very much as my right hon. and learned Friend anticipated. Tremendous progress was made in the development of Welsh roads. For example, there was the A470 from Cardiff to Merthyr, and roads leading to Wales, notably the M4 and its associated routes.
Our period of office saw the establishment of the western territorial headquarters of British Rail, in Cardiff. That provided 2,000 jobs. Grants for station improvements were given for the first time by a Secretary of State for Wales. Only one line—Bridgend to Treherbert—was closed, compared with 240 miles of line closed by the previous Labour Government.
My right hon. and learned Friend also gave financial support to the Welsh Council's decision to set up a major research project on passenger transport needs in Wales. We now have the result in the invaluable report of Professor Graham Rees and Richard Wragg. Similarly, the Conservative Government took a close interest in civil aviation in Wales. During our tenure of office the Welsh Advisory Committee for Civil Aviation produced its stratgey for Wales, which has provided the foundation for a great deal of subsequent thinking, as my

hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) will testify. My hon. Friend now chairs a Conservative Party committee that is concerned with the future of Rhoose Airport.
The ports, which are not mentioned in the motion, flourished greatly during our period in Government. These matters did not happen by accident but were the beneficial outcome of deliberate policy, which was admirably summed up at the beginning of the Welsh Grand Committee to which I have referred. I do not think we can improve on my right hon. and learned Friend's words. He said:
We need an efficient transport system with a network of services for passengers and freight covering every part of the Principality. This is essential to the proper maintenance and development of our social and economic life. To achieve this is—and must continue to be—one of our first priorities."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee: 15th December 1971, c. 3.]
We totally reject the charge of failure that is levelled against the Conservative Government. I suggest to the supporters of the motion that they would not have made the charge had they familiarised themselves properly with the achievements of our Government in improving communications in Wales. So much for the past and our honourable part in it. I apologise for having had to dwell upon it.
If the signatories to the motion had chosen their words more carefully and abstained from casting aspersions on our period in Government, they might have had our support in the Lobby if they decide to divide the House. As it is, they cannot expect us wrongly to condemn ourselves. However, Plaid Cymru has never been renowned for its careful choice of words. The harsh truth is that while there may be some selective improvement to the industrial infrastructure in terms of communications, many people fear that the existing infrastructure will be severely curtailed and damaged in the years immediately ahead.
In so far as the communications infrastructure is the responsibility of local government, anticipated curtailment has already been spelt out by Welsh Circular No. 228, issued on New Year's eve. Under the heading "Local Transport Services", paragraph 46 states that
local authorities will need to reduce expenditure on road construction and maintenance:


increase car parking charges with the general objective of meeting a substantially larger proportion of the total costs of car parking … from that source; increase in many cases bus fares at a rate in excess of general movement in prices …; hold down administration costs to current levels and implement economies wherever possible.
It is anticipated that there will be a standstill in central Government spending. With all the nationalised transport industries losing ever-increasing sums—British Rail will lose between £400 million and £500 million this year, according to The Times today, and British Waterways, British Airways, the National Bus Company and the National Freight Corporation are also losing large sums of money—it is very difficult to see the present investment being maintained in real terms, let alone being increased.
The railway unions are under no illusion about the present situation. They state, in a letter sent to all Members of Parliament:
We have learnt, following discussions with the Secretary of State for the Environment, that our fears that the Government is planning to freeze rail investment at a level of £328 million (at 1975 prices) for five years from 1976 onwards are justified. This is substantially lower than the levels accepted by the previous government in November 1973. We believe that this policy, in conjunction with the freezing of revenue support at the 1975 level, will do irreparable damage to the railway system.
Now we know that the Government's reply to the implications of such a freeze—which are, of course, cuts in services—is to deny present awareness of proposals to close passenger lines in Wales. How naïve do they think we all are? The writing is on the wall. The Government pretend that it is not there. We can see it but they cannot. They are blind to the consequences of their own policies.
No doubt the Minister will say that we should await the outcome of the current review of transport policy as a whole. Such an answer will not quell the fears of the railway unions and others who are deeply disturbed about the grim prospect that lies ahead.
I hope that the Minister will "come clean" on the situation as he sees it developing in Wales and will tell us what is in store for us in terms of road, rail and air communications. The sooner we know the worst, the sooner we can make

constructive criticisms of Government policies to deal with the situation, and the sooner hon. Members will stop asking for the moon—as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, in view of the present economic situation, tended to do.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to create unnecessary alarm and despondency in Wales, because the consultative document will shortly appear and will be the subject of wide consultation over a period of months before decisions are taken. The hon. Gentleman referred to the standstill on local government expenditure—a standstill that is unpalatable to every hon. Member. Will he outline his party's policy on that standstill and the circular to which he referred?

Mr. Roberts: I have no wish to create alarm and despondency in Wales, but I can only point out that that alarm and despondency already exists and needs no promotion from us.
On the question of the standstill in local government expenditure, the Government released the circular on New Year's Eve, and last year they released a similar circular two days before Christmas. My personal view is that central Government do not take their full share of responsibility for the cuts in rate support grant as they affect local authorities. I am trying to be helpful to the Government and I think that as my speech progresses they will see where we stand on that issue.
I wish to make other criticisms of the motion. In the first place "infrastructure" includes far more than a question of communications. As the motion stands, the implication is that the signatories have concluded that communications as defined are more important and have a higher priority than do housing, education and other amenities normally comprised in the term "infrastructure" in present political parlance.
Secondly, there is no mention of direct incentives to regional development such as those available under the Conservative legislation introduced in 1972. Perhaps I am wrong, but the implication of the motion is that incentives are not as important as is infrastructure development in the promotion of the Welsh economy.
It is important to get right the relationship between infrastructure development and direct incentives. Judging by the Report of the Expenditure Committee, published on 13th December 1973, one view is taken by industrialists and another by academics. I believe that improvement of the infrastructure has a vital part to play in regional policy and largely determines the effectiveness of other measures. It is a view shared by the OECD as set out in its document "The Reappraisal of Regional Policy" published in 1974.
Infrastructure development is expensive. In an effort to be helpful to the Government, I suggest that in future they look carefully at infrastructure development proposals and try to assess their value as closely as possible in terms of the promotion of economic growth. There is only a limited amount of money available and it is vital that we obtain the maximum benefit from whatever investment the Government make in Wales. There is a strong case for applying cost-benefit techniques across the whole spectrum of demands for Government support.
In this context the Government's top priority—the completion of the M4 and the dualling of the A55—is absolutely right. Those were our priorities as stated in our election manifesto "For Wales and her people" in 1974. Both roads are lifelines to the Principality and it would be fatal to our future if they were not proceeded with as quickly as possible.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have been unable to extract from the Government any commitment about work on the A5 and the completion of work on the M4? The time scale laid down by the Conservative Government for the connection between the two roads seems to have vanished. Will my hon. Friend press the Government to give the House the present time scale?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that the Minister has carefully noted what my hon. Friend said. I shall certainly add what weight I can by asking the Minister to comment, in his concluding speech, on my hon. Friend's observations. There were other proposals in our manifesto for improving communications in Wales. However, today we face a harsh reality. As much as one would like to press the

Government for the implementation of our proposals I believe that at this stage it would be totally unrealistic to do so. We are living in a recession, not in a time of prosperity. We are living in a time of contraction and not of expansion. We are living under a Labour Government and not a Conservative Government.
As a responsible Opposition who will be called upon to govern before long, we must face the facts as we find them. We shall not delude the people and hold out promises that we cannot fulfil. Honesty is the best policy in this as in other matters. It is because we find this motion fundamentally lacking in realism that I cannot advise my hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby this evening. At the same time, I cannot advise them to support the Government, who have largely brought the present situation upon them-selves by encouraging the disastrous wage inflation of 1974 to win the October election, and by their spendthrift and profligate policies on Government spending.
In my view it is a crying shame that the British people must learn the hard way that Socialism undoubtedly means high and enduring unemployment. For the thousands who still have a job it means uncertainty for the future as well as hardship and a lower standard of living for the present. A Government who land the British people in this predicament cannot conceivably merit our support.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: A few weeks ago there was a large lobby of railwaymen. I did not see any of the Welsh Nationalist Members present, but perhaps I missed them. However, I am certain that they would have been interested to hear about the type of fantasy world outlined in the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), which clearly adumbrated a separate Wales. Indeed, if we follow the hon. Gentleman's example, we may even have different railway line gauges to keep some people in and other people out.
The major issue in this debate is investment. The whole of the British railway system will depend entirely on investment. The Labour Party is committed by its annual conference decision


and by its manifesto—so many people insist on the sanctity of manifestos—to an integral transport policy and to the offloading of much of the road traffic back on to the railway system.
Reference has been made to letters from railwaymen. The contents are largely rumour, and have been denied by the Government. They are merely impressions. At a period of high inflation we should really be saying that we shall consider the position, in the light of the economic situation, at the most year by year. Railwaymen's real fears have found their legitimate expression in letters of that kind. However, when we are being reported in the House we should be careful about sowing further despondency and holding out, as the hon. Gentleman said towards the end of his speech, the spectre of massive further unemployment leading to further railways cuts.
Wales suffered pretty severely under the Beeching cuts. It is arguable that if there are further cuts it is not likely to suffer to the same degree. I know that is a pessimistic argument and that I should be saying, in support of the railwaymen, that the railways should be reassuring the doubtful. What I have just said seems to be an acceptance of the fact that as we have already lost so much on a percentage basis we stand to lose not so much in the future.
Many Labour Members will press for further investment in the Welsh railways. If the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) had been present at the railwaymen's lobby he would know of the attitude taken by Members of Parliament who are closely linked with the various unions of British Railways. If he had attended the meetings in the Grand Committee Room and heard many of us speak to gatherings of 300 or 400 railwaymen at a time, he would know of the commitment, given by many Labour Members who are not railwaymen, to support railwaymen and their future.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Our fears are based on the answer that was given by the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday at Question Time, when he confirmed that the investment rate would be £238 million per annum. We are concerned that if that holds true,

and the amount is not for example, £350 million per annum, there will be repercussions in Wales and elsewhere.

Mr. Evans: That is for the current year. During the period when the Government tackle these problems the whole situation will be subject to constant review.
I committed myself to the support of the railwaymen's case at the meeting which took place a few weeks ago. We must not fail to recognise that investment in the totality of British Railways is bound to benefit Wales. There is an overflowing benefit even from investment in the English side of British Railways. That benefit is in the form of communications and movement of freight and people. We must recognise that with two countries so closely linked as England and Wales, development cannot take place in only the larger of the two partners without providing a psychological stimulus to the whole system. Whether the Government are willing or unwilling to invest, pressure will ensure that the system is evened out throughout the whole country.
The major road developments that the Government envisage have been recognised and accepted, certainly by the Conservative Party. In the major populated areas of Wales, and certainly in the area in which I live, there is the major problem of road transport from one narrow, twisting valley to another.
To supplement the infrastructure of the major developments which are taking place we need a whole series of new trunk roads covering South Wales, giving access to the ports, to the airport, up and down the valleys, and even transversely, to make transport far easier than it is at present. Within my own constituency it would take one of my constituents longer to visit me than for Members of Plaid Cymru to travel from Cardiff to that distant, remote, impersonal and non-caring place called London.
It was interesting today to read that some naughty people in Newport, who do not accept that the fight for Rhoose has failed, intend to come out with their own plans for an airport there. We want a balanced system of regional airports. However, the hon. Member for Carmarthen seemed to be arguing for a system of regional airports which amounted almost to one in every back


yard, or certainly a helicopter service of that nature. I am sure that the Newport question will loom large when the idea is developed.
We live in a world of shrinking communications. We are conscious of events in India and China, for example, and we can get to those places easily. If we make appreciable sacrifices of our transport system, we shall drive communities back into themselves, unless people have motor cars. However, they will then have to cope with the difficult roads throughout the Welsh valleys to which I have referred. Driving the community back into itself will effectively rob Wales of the richness of its cultural life which attracts so many tourists. It will erode the sense of togetherness and the genuine warmth of communication which is found in Welsh communities. This will create more damage than some of the matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Carmarthen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that a frozen transport system will encourage the development of a siege economy. People in Wales are now vividly beginning to realise that Wales could not subsist on its own economic resources. We shall always depend on a reciprocal interchange with other parts of the United Kingdom. Some Members of Plaid Cymru seem to think that we are having everything taken from us and are given nothing. There would be no educational system in England—it would be a nation of illiterates—were it not for the valuable export of Welsh teachers. Certainly we want industries and regional development in Wales. This is part of the pattern of a reasonable interchange between nations and is to be highly valued.
We must bring pressure on the Government to honour their commitments. Benefits will then flow into Wales. We should avoid a siege economy and the prospect of a miserable economic future for the Welsh people. We should put off the assertion made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen for 50 years, not 10 years.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Having listened with interest during the last hour, I should compare the comments made by right hon. and hon.

Members of the two major parties with two bad dogs licking their wounds after a fight. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides are trying to cover up for their inept transport policies over the past two decades which have failed to safeguard the interests of the Welsh people.
One of the most notable failures of Governments over the years has been in the co-ordination of transport in Wales, and this underlines many of the economic difficulties we are experiencing today. It has had an adverse effect not only on the traditional industrial areas, but on the gradual depopulation of our rural areas to which it has been almost impossible to attract industry over the years. Parts of West and North Wales, which are badly in need of additional revenue and job opportunities, have suffered as a result.
Public transport in Ceredigion, as in most other rural areas, is very limited. Indeed, many villages have no means of transport, apart from the private car. Young people living in these villages find it difficult to get to the towns for work or pleasure. Consequently, there is a trend towards depopulation with its economic and social problems.
I know that many right hon. and hon. Members disagree with the sentiments I express, but they are facts. It is essential, therefore, that all interested parties—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howells: No. I have taken the advice of Mr. Deputy Speaker not to give way during this short debate. It is essential, therefore, that all interested parties in Wales should get together to discuss the possibilities of improving transport and building new roads where suitable. It could be suggested to British Railways that they were too hasty in closing down some of the lines and that certain routes should be reopened. Certainly no more lines should be allowed to close. Schemes for improved bus services suiting the needs of communities should also be investigated. It is clear that action must be taken soon if we are to revitalise our rural communities and give them some of the advantages of modern life.
Many of my constituents, and many councillors, are worried. I have a copy


of a letter written by the Chief Executive Officer of Ceredigion District Council, Mr. Kendal Harris, to Mr. F. W. Young, the divisional manager of British Railways. In that letter, dated 2nd February 1976, regarding railway services, he states:
There has been much talk recently, as you know, about the reduction in the size of the railway network and the Divisional Manager at Cardiff wrote recently to the Chief Exectuive of Dyfed County Council denying 'that any proposals exist to reduce the system size on the scale which has been widely suggested in the press and the media'.
Separately from this has been the publicity about the negotiations with the trade unions about the reductions in services.
What definite information is available about these two matters as they affect the rail services here? It would be appreciated if you could make some informed comment to clarify the position.
Referring again to my constituent, I understand that British Railways have less than 10 miles of track in Ceredigion, except for the narrow gauge Vale of Rheidol Railway, and the roads were certainly not designed for swift moving or heavy traffic.
There is no easy way to get from North to South Wales. It is a standing joke that if representatives of Welsh institutions want to get together they have to go to Shrewsbury, because that is the only place they can all reach. It is very unfortunate that they cannot get together in places like Aberystwyth and other parts of mid-Wales. Wales has never been an easy terrain on which to travel. Perhaps that is why we have kept our rugged individuality for so long. But it should be possible, with some foresight and intelligent application, to make use of existing facilities and adapt them to the needs of Wales today.
For example, it is important not to make hasty decisions about further cuts in rail services. I am particularly pleased to have been assured in the House that the Government consider rail services in Wales should make a maximum contribution to the transport system and that the rail system is important to Wales. I shall be reminding them of that statement as often as I can and asking them to fulfil their obligations by ensuring that the services are not only maintained, but improved.
It has become increasingly obvious to me that if we do not solve our transport and communication problems in Wales, we shall never solve our economic problems. In Ceredigion, we have several nursery factories lying idle. Despite many efforts to fill them, no industrialist has been tempted to move in. The main reason is that there are no direct rail or road links between many towns in Ceredigion and firms, potential markets in England. On a recent visit to Scotland, I was very impressed with the air services operating there. This is an aspect of communication which has been neglected in Wales. I flew from Glasgow to the Isle of Skye and found that the air strips in Wales at places like Anglesey, Merioneth, Aberporth in my constituency, and Rhoose, some of which are owned by the Ministry of Defence, would be ideal for the kind of small aircraft that could be used. I wonder whether any research has been done into the possibility of an air link between Cardiff, North and West Wales?
No mention has yet been made of the facilities we have in Wales. For instance, we have many ports, including Aberystwyth, New Quay and Cardigan. The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is not here at the moment, but I know that he is very worried that liners from Ireland are not able at present to come into Holyhead. This could have a disastrous effect on the agricultural economy in that area. Our ports could be improved if we could persuade more tourists to make use of these facilities.
Successive Governments have sadly neglected a transport policy in rural areas, particularly in Wales. The top priority must be an extensive road building programme with motorways linking North and South Wales and Aberystwyth and Shrewsbury, giving easy access to the Midlands. The railroad between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen should be reopened to provide a rail link between North and South Wales. Co-ordinating the traffic flow system in Wales would be one of the most important functions of the Welsh Development Agency. Top priority should be given to improved communications in Wales.
Unless this Government are prepared to take
action they should make way for the Liberals, who have more foresight and sympathy with the economic plight


of our nation. Wales is only a small nation in comparison with many others in the world, but it is the Land of my Fathers and it is our duty to look after her interests to the best of our ability. Because of the inept Government policies to deal with the urgent problems facing the Welsh nation, my party will vote for the motion.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: For one moment I thought the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) was going to burst into song. As all but three of the hon. Members in the Chamber at the moment are Welsh we would have felt obliged to join in. Perhaps we could use the services of Max Boyce at Westminster.
It is strange that this debate was immediately preceded by a statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade about the great success in gaining access for Concorde to Washington and New York and cutting the time for very expensive transatlantic travel from eight hours to three hours—which is about the time it takes me to get from Cardiff to Hereford or Llanbedr on a good day. I have taken that long to get across the Island of Anglesey at peak time during the summer.
I have consistently supported the development of financing of Concorde, but I wonder whether we have slightly twisted priorities when we consider that a part of Great Britain with 2½ million people, a pre condition of whose economic survival is an adequate communications network, has been regarded by successive Governments as having less precedence than the dramatic and attractive technological development of cutting the time taken to cross the Atlantic.
Debates like this, if they do nothing else, at least remove us from the cockpit of the pro- or anti-Concorde argument and permit us to reassert the elementary necessity of improving out of all recognition the communications system in Wales and to balance this priority against the priorities that have been adopted in the past.
My historical sense was titillated by the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardigan who spoke of the failure of successive Labour and Conservative Governments to make provision for communications in Wales. I do not remember

it, but we had a Liberal Prime Minister and Government in this country for a fairly considerable time. Their contribution to the task of improving the communications system in Wales was to give highly lucrative licences to private rail company operators some of whom were later rewarded with hereditary peerages—for a price. Whatever contribution the Liberal Party has to make to the general debate, comparisons with the records of past Governments are not the most fruitful line for them to pursue.
Wales does not have an adequate communications network and this is part of the reason for the sensitivity of the Welsh economy to the difficulties of other economies. It appears that, far from an excess of Socialism, as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said, causing unemployment, the cause is the almost total absence of Socialism or of a consistent approach to the planning of industrial opportunities and support for industrial development. More specifically, of course, the catastrophic cuts in railway services, the neglect of road-spending programmes and the lack of imagination in trying to improve the existing road network in Wales to meet the increasing demands upon it, whether for industrial, tourist or general purposes of social intercourse have been at the root of the trouble.
Demands are made for a motorway to run from North to South Wales. It would be the safest motorway in the country. It would be the only one in the world on which the children could safely play marbles for most of the year. It would be the most incredible waste of public money. That would not be the axis of industrial development in Wales. I do not think anyone who manifests a particular loyalty to Wales or even understands the Welsh economic problem would advocate such a prospect.
What we need is a major improvement of the road between Hereford and Bangor. If that road were brought up to main trunk road standard within Gwent to Abergavenny and beyond into Herefordshire, that would significantly improve the diagonal, and most important, communications link between North and South Wales. If we were to consider not this glamorous and appealing slash of communication down the centre of Wales,


but, instead, the true needs of Wales, we would be talking, nationalist prejudice aside, of an improvement of all the border routes, road and rail, and of the network of routes coming off them. Essentially we are talking about an improvement of the A49, about a regular North-South passenger rail service to replace the charming safari which is involved in getting from Cardiff to North Wales and, in addition, essentially extending the three routes to provide a good chance of industrial development in North, Mid and South Wales.
That is a logical route plan for Wales. It is not that it just has an appealing logic. For the retention of population and for industrial development this kind of idea should have taken precedence over the galaxy of industrial inducements, bribes and cajolery that has existed in the last 10 or 15 years—

Sir A. Meyer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman may say "Hear, hear", but his party has a policy of the most general parsimony on public expenditure. It thinks that it sounds virile to be careful with the public purse. However, public expenditure cuts have extended from being its general philosophy to being its only economic policy. It has been the case ever since countrymen of ours destroyed the toll system in Mid and West Wales—heaven bless Rebecca and the ladies—that all road investment in this country has been public investment. We cannot, therefore, on the one hand identify the difficulties of Wales as resulting largely from the inadequacy of the road system and simultaneously advocate even a restraint on public expenditure, far less the kind of cuts the Conservatives would like.

Sir A. Meyer: I am sure that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) did not deliberately seek to mislead the House, but he must be aware of the sharp distinction which exists between the large cuts which are possible on current expenditure and transfer payments, and cuts in investment. That is quite a different story and something we have never advocated.

Mr. Kinnock: If we could count on those whose business confidence we are told is so vital to our economic survival

adopting, the hon. Gentleman's understanding attitude towards cuts in public expenditure we could get away with what he is advocating. We could get away simultaneously with increasing investment while trimming transfer payments and current expenditure. Unfortunately, these matters are not seen that way. If we were to increase expenditure on the scale which would be demanded by an improvement of the Welsh communication system, whatever long-term benefit it might bring to industry, tourism, commerce or domestic life, it would still be seen as an increase in public expenditure. I support it just the same. The difficulty is that there appears to be on the Conservative Benches no advocate who could explain it to those whose confidence is said to be so necessary.
Perhaps I could make a relevant projection about the changes that are taking place in our way of life in Wales. I have in recent memory—for some of us it is an unforgettable memory—the proposition for major devolution of powers to a Welsh Assembly. The devolution debate has taken place, and it would not only be boring and repetitively odious to rehearse the arguments again, it would be out of order. It is fair, however, in considering a motion about the future of the infrastructure in Wales, and specifically about the communications infrastructure, for us to consider all the possibilities which exist for drawing up a systematic and coherent communications policy in the event that the devolution propositions should come to fruition.
Under the proposals either there would not be a single farthing more for investment in communications or, whatever the arguments advanced in the Assembly or here, those in Cardiff would not enjoy an atom of extra discretion in seeking to improve the roads in Wales. Under those arrangements we should not be justified in seeking a debate like this because these matters would already have been thoroughly and comprehensively covered in an alternative semi-legislature. If we ever came to the situation which Plaid Cymru envisages tonight, of having to vote on the matter, the strange fact is that no Welsh or Scottish Member could justify himself, in democratic terms, casting the determining vote about communications, because it would not be Parliament's business.
Debates such as this offer us a practical opportunity to discuss openly what all of us would like to see in Wales, and not simply to make parochial complaints but to bring what, we hope, is collective wisdom to bear on these problems, and to try to set our demands against the realities of the time and the calculable changes of the future. It appears to me that in the proposals for devolution there is one calculable change of the future which would be detrimental in respect of attaining the ideal that we all want—a useful economic and fully developed public transport and communications system in Wales.
Finally, I return to a point made by the hon. Member for Conway. He seeks to prove—I can understand why—that our difficulties in Wales at present in communications and other matters, most specifically, unemployment, are the consequence of Socialism. I think that it was Lenin who said that Socialism was Marx plus electricity. In the case of the problems of Wales, Socialism would mean a Labour Government plus the willingness to undertake a vast extension in public investment. It would mean the kind of reflation for which we have called previously, and not simply money going in the form of tax rebate into private pockets to be spent—as President Ford has tried to do it or as others have advocated—but in the form of directed public investment, nowhere better than in communications, which would remain under the control of and directly responsive to the public will through publicly elected representatives.

6.2 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: I shall try to be brief. The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) displayed once again his passionate love for Wales. We acknowledge that feeling. However, I hope that he will acknowledge that there are others in other parties—all of us, probably—who share his love of the Principality but who nevertheless have different ideas about how we can best ensure the prosperity and future well-being of Wales. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that proposition. Indeed, some of us fear the very dangerous effects, as we see them, of the possible break-up of the United Kingdom and the consequences which could arise therefrom for the economy of Wales.
The hon. Gentleman and his party have put down this motion which deplores the lack or inadequacy of the infrastructure, and they mention especially transportation by air, rail and road. We cannot quarrel with that. Obviously, all of us can say that the infrastructure and transport could be better. It would be foolish to deny that. However, this is a very difficult time for making a case that this is the appropriate moment in history to embark on a major programme of improving that infrastructure.
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the economy is in a particularly delicate state of balance at present. I should have thought that what we can do to improve the infrastructure in the next year or so must be of a particularly selective nature. Some of the sort of expenditure involved would of necessity be rather large. It would not necessarily be labour intensive. It would certainly not necessarily provide a remedy for unemployment in certain areas. Expenditure on improvement of the infrastructure would have to be particularly carefully designed and, at the same time, very selective.
I share the views that have been expressed about the need to improve the roads of Wales. However, I say to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that I do not think that it is possible to improve the roads without incurring consequences for other forms of transportation. The hon. Gentleman implied that we could improve all these things at the same time. I apprehend that the improvement of the M4 has meant a considerable loss of business for British Rail. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that this is one of the difficulties. Similarly—to take an English example—the improvement of the rail service between Manchester and London has meant serious losses for British Airways. We cannot look at these matters in isolation. We must look at them all.
I see a need for improving the motorway and extending it to the west, for industrial reasons as well as reasons of personal transport. I share the anxieties which have been expressed about the failure—I acknowledge the failure—of past Governments to do more for airway development in Wales. That is


one of my hobby horses, naturally, because Rhoose Airport is in the constituency which I have had the honour to represent for some years. I sincerely hope that the Government will look at this matter again.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen gave some of the figures for relative expenditure on civil aviation in different parts of the United Kingdom. I do not see how any Government can get away from the fact that the amount of expenditure by Government—I use the word "Government" in general terms—on civil aviation in Wales has been negligible, while in other parts of the United Kingdom it has sometimes been on quite a substantial scale. Therefore, in all fairness, I believe that there is a case for some help to the very hard pressed consortium of local authorities which is now bearing the cost of the upkeep of the airport at Rhoose.
I found the recent report of the committee that has been studying the regional airports in the West of the United Kingdom somewhat unrealistic. It talked about the ideal airport which could be created at Bristol. It gave as an alternative a combination of the airport at Rhoose and the airport at Exeter. But it ignored the fact that the airport at Rhoose exists, while a suitable airport at Bristol certainly does not exist. That, too, is an additional reason for help to the consortium of county councillors. That help is very much needed. We can argue the merits of the expenditure on which they embarked, but the fact is that this has been done. The runways have been extended and the facilities have been created. It would be very wrong if those admirable facilities were now not to be fully used.
I tend to share the views expressed about the railway network in Wales now being of such a nature that any further cuts would perhaps cause fatal injury. The problem is related to road traffic problems in the more thickly populated parts of South Wales, and possibly in North-East Wales and certainly in the Glamorgans and in Gwent. One cannot look at the railway situation in and around Cardiff and Swansea without considering the effect of the railway system being reduced. There is certainly a large amount of commuter traffic by rail in

and out of Cardiff, and it is tending to increase in some ways. This is an encouraging factor. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, who will be replying to the debate, will emphasise this factor. I am referring now not to the general picture but to the particular nature of the commuter traffic in and out of the larger regions—and particularly Cardiff, in South Wales. It is relieving the very heavy road traffic, which had almost come to a standstill.
This evening I make this special plea on behalf of civil aviation and on behalf of one aspect of the railway traffic. That is as much as I can and should attempt to do in the short time available. I have abbreviated my speech in the interest of other members.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes: It so happens that there are two debates in the House today—one on Wales and one on Scotland. Perhaps this is the forerunner of what is to happen in Cardiff on Saturday. I feel quite convinced that on Saturday evening I shall be singing Mae hen wlad fy nhadau—and hymns and arias as well, but one plea I make is that on Saturday we shall not find that we have a Glasgow referee.
On a more serious note, there has been another link between Scotland and Wales this week—the announcement of the dispersal of Ministry of Defence personnel. I say quite clearly and categorically this evening that this is a disgraceful decision announced by the Ministry of Defence. I know what is behind it. I also know who is behind it. I give the Government fair warning this evening that in the weeks and months ahead I intend to see to it that they will hear much more about this question.
When we examine the problems facing Wales at the present time, it is necessary to bear in mind, first, that 80 per cent. of the people of the Principality live in the two counties of Glamorgan and Monmouthshire. We know that the economies of those two counties were originally largely based on the coal industry.
Coal is mined where it is found. The coal industry of South Wales employed many thousands of men and was essentially a sort of male-dominated community. With the closure and the run-down of the mining industry in the


last 15 years, considerable diversification has had to be brought about in relation to the employment of people who formerly found their work in the mining industry.
A few days ago the Gwent County Council brought out a very important report. One of the principal aspects of the report was to draw attention to the huge acreage of land available in the south of the county of Gwent. It is flat land—not very good agricultural land—and would be ideal for industrial development purposes.
Such a development would have considerable virtue, for, in the first instance, the land adjoins the great Llanwern works—now the cornerstone of the whole economy of Gwent, employing nearly 10,000 work people.
One of the linking aspects of such development in this area would be port development. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has already briefly referred to this matter.
One of the great disappointments concerning the Llanwern project has been that it has not had its own iron ore terminal. Some development of this kind in the south of Monmouthshire would be of considerable assistance in making this a fully integrated works, and in boosting the morale of the work people.
The British Transport Docks Board, in the course of this Session of Parliament, will be introducing a Private Bill to extend its option for development. It has a port project in this area which could take in also the Uskmouth terminal, and would serve the Llanwern works. I have always been convinced of the merit of such a scheme, and I hope that eventually the Government will give it the go-ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East has, as I have said, referred to the South Wales ports. They are going through a difficult time at the moment. The prospects do not look good, because of the West Dock scheme at Bristol. But the interesting point is that, whereas the West Dock scheme has been highly speculative in character—in other words, it involves the building of a port without any trade—the Uskmouth project, which I have repeatedly advocated, has a guaranteed in-built trade

with the great Llanwern steelworks and the supplying of its iron ore.
Concerning general development in the south of Monmouthshire, the people at the heads of the valley have nothing to fear at all. The more major projects that are sited there, the more the smaller types of projects will flow quite naturally up the valleys to places like Abertillery and Ebbw Vale.
We need better communications to our valleys. Certainly we need much better roads. It was a regrettable step when the railway communications to those valleys were closed some years ago.
There is a need in this period of economic depression to concentrate on the infrastructure of Wales. In this sense the Keynesian remedy is still highly relevant. It was relevant before the war, when we should have improved our infrastructure. Now that there are thousands of construction workers, among others, drawing unemployment benefit, when they should be employed on these vitally necessary projects for the future wellbeing of the people of Wales, it is equally relevant.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: I shall be brief and confine myself to certain specific queries relating to communications in Wales.
My first general question concerns us very much in North Wales. Why are there no proposals for a motorway route in North Wales when the traffic volume would clearly justify its provision? It is true that some progress has been made with the A55. Many years have elapsed since a former distinguished Member of this House was driven to hitch a lift as a pillion passenger on a motor cycle to attend a function on the Welsh side of the Dee. The Government have now given priority, very rightly, to the A55.
I have a specific query to put in relation to this. In view of that priority, why is it that the proposed extension east of Abergele is not being allowed to proceed immediately? The fact that an inquiry about the North Wales Expressway is going on in Colwyn Bay is not material, because whatever route is ultimately approved there is no reason why this scheme should not proceed.
The A5, as the Minister may be aware, is also a trunk road, even though it does not now carry anything like the weight


of traffic that the A55 does. It is regrettable that there is no major works programme for the A5. I understand that there is no development in respect of the Corwen Bypass, and there has, on the other hand, been a considerable waste of time and money over the proposed bypass for Llangollen. As I have advised the Welsh Office over and over again, there is universal opposition locally to this project. It is unlikely that this line will be developed anyway and if one is adopted it is likely to impede development for many years to come. That has been the unhappy history of Llanrwst, another town in my constituency, where a line was adopted as far back as 1958 but no bypass has been built. The existence of this line has been responsible for at least one firm leaving the town.
I have some sympathy with what has been said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) about the north-south trunk road. I shall not be tempted into any remarks about devolution in this context, but, whatever our views about that cr about a proposed Welsh Assembly, we must all agree that Wales is an administrative unit and that lack of such a major highway is serious.
I dismiss immediately, as most of us would, the unrealistic suggestion of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) of a motorway from north to south, but there is a very good case for the completion of the spine road or trunk road, whatever one calls it, to join North and South. The former Socialist Government were quite right to give priority in 1965 to east-west communications, but the time has now come to give priority to this route.
Have the Government ever considered reintroducing a statute similar to the old Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act of 1955, a little known but very useful measure introduced by a Conservative Government—and regrettably allowed to lapse by a later Conservative Government in 1962—which was of great benefit to Wales in regard to the improvement of rural roads? Half of the money provided under that statute was spent in the Principality and was of considerable benefit there.
I am one of those unfortunate Members of Parliament—there are many of
us—whose constituencies were virtually denuded of railways under the Beeching axe more than a decade ago. That makes us all the more jealous to preserve such remnants of the former rural railway system as still exist. I should like a firm undertaking that the Vale of Conwy branch line will not be closed. This is a matter of considerable local concern.
I hope that my queries will be dealt with. I do not expect the Minister to answer them off the cuff, but perhaps he will deal in correspondence with what he cannot answer in the debate.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In bringing to a conclusion the remarks from this Bench, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the half Supply Day that we have been accorded and express thanks to those who made it available—even though we should always be grateful for more.
This has been a wide-ranging debate, possibly too wide-ranging for the time available. That is something that we shall bear in mind for our next opportunity. It is odd, when everyone agrees on the importance of infrastructure for the economy of Wales and other places, that we are unsuccessful in getting the necessary action on the things which need to be done.
This is essentially an economic debate, but like so many other matters the social and cultural aspects depend so much on the economic aspect. It is absolutely essential for a country like Wales, which suffered so much depopulation and unemployment, to get the economic base right if we are to overcome our other problems.
Economic development depends on two broad considerations. The first is the market forces in general, which depend largely on demand management. This is an international aspect. As the Prime Minister said recently, that may be well outside the control of the United Kingdom. The second consideration is supply management, involving locational determinants for industry. This debate concerns mainly that subject.
Our objective should be to stimulate self-regenerative economic growth. That has been the subject of many studies in many countries, and many different


solutions have been put forward. Four categories of thought apply to this general area of consideration. The first is the use of the carrot to induce industrial and economic development. The analysis here is divided between those who believe in making an area attractive for industry and those who want to compensate industry for the basic weaknesses of any area. The second category is the whip, in which area also there are two sub-divisions—the philosophy of those who want to use prohibitive measures like industrial development certificate and that of those who want to use positive measures such as, possibly, the direction of industry. There is a fundamental debate there.
The third category to be considered is the dispute between planned and sporadic development. Wales has suffered more than most places from too much sporadic development and too little planned development. But if we are to have planned development the argument must turn on whether we will do this in terms of concentrated growth centres or in a diffused manner. There are countries which have succeeded in both methods. I prefer the growth centre technique, but I should have liked to hear much more discussion today of points like this, because they are important for developing a communication network.
The fourth group of considerations centre on the question whether the industrial development should be mainly companies which are locally rooted—in other words, organic growth, an aspect much favoured in the more rural areas, where they want many small companies to grow—or whether there should be transplanted economic growth, under which large supranational or international companies are induced to enter an area.
All those four categories must be considered. I suspect that Wales has tended to miss out on all four. The use of the carrot of compensation has been unfortunate. We should have done much more to overcome the basic weaknesses in our economy—in other words, we should have provided better roads and a better communications network generally rather than compensated companies for having to suffer the present network.
I want to take up next—I accept that Conservative Members will disagree with

this—the refusal of successive Governments to direct industry. There may be difficulties in doing this in the private sector, but in the public sector—more and more of the economy has come into that sector—there is considerable scope for additional direction of industry to areas of severe unemployment. We have suffered sporadic development here, too, with virtually no pattern of economic planning.
One of the problems with the transplanted companies that we have had is that often, at times of economic recession, they have closed down branch factories and moved out of Wales again. If it is possible to root industrial development in an area, that is much better for the area.
These considerations are the bases of this debate. It is important to create the right positive attractions for industry and to do so on a planned basis. We may ask what the locational determinants are for an industry going to an area. I acknowledge the 1972 Industry Act as a step in the right direction. It has not done everything, but it has probably taken as far as it can be taken the use of incentives as pure bait. To talk of taking it much further is to become unrealistic.
But although that approach went far along the road towards giving as much bait as possible, it has proved unsuccessful. We need to develop the positive attractions of Wales as a location for industry. That means an economic plan, a subject to which I have referred in the past; I will not go over old ground again. One of the things that it means in an economic plan based on growth centres is that we need a better transport system.
A paper produced by the Wales TUC on this matter of transport in Wales said:
Transport in Wales in the post-war period has been characterised by a combination of cutbacks, under-investment and official procrastination … The Wales TUC feel that the decimation of the transport system in Wales has gone on unchecked for too long.
Those are important words, and we should take note of them.
I believe also that a valid comment has been made in this context by the


Welsh County Committee in a memorandum which it submitted to the Secretary of State in 1972. Referring to the road network, it said:
Thus England's road programme has the two basic ingredients lacking in the Welsh strategy. Namely, the urgent improvement, to dual carriageway standard, of a selected number of routes which will give good interurban links and secondly, the completion of this route network within a specified time period.
There is no reason why this could not be done for Wales.
The specified time period is important bearing in mind that the promises made by successive Governments have not come to fruition.
This is a point which has been made by the Development Corporation for Wales. It produced a report on road communications in North Wales. It said that a road network would be necessary to take up the traffic projected for 1981 which included dual carriageway for the A55 and the A5 and a link road between the A55 and the A5 in the Wrexham area. That was regarded as a necessary development to cope with projected traffic needs but, unfortunately, it has not taken place.
May I, Mr. Speaker, congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair and say how pleased I am to be making this my first speech with you in charge of our proceedings.
We need a co-ordinated transport system. In fact, we need more than just that. We need co-ordination between the road and rail network, and this is an interesting point which has been made strongly by the Wales TUC. It said in the paper to which I referred earlier:
We need an urgent and fundamental reappraisal of the total transportation system of Wales. This should be urgently instituted. Moreover we feel that radical changes should be made in the planning and decision-making framework so that future transport policy will be more sensitive, responsive and accountable to the opinion of the people of Wales. Our principal aim should be the creation of an integrated network of road, rail, sea and air transport systems.
That is something for which I press strongly.
Reference has been made to the investment programme of British Railways over the next few years. If the investment programme is retained at £238 million per

annum, which the Minister for Transport referred to at Question Time yesterday and said he could see that that did not necessarily mean there would be a reduction of services in the long term, I must inform the House that that is not the opinion of many people involved in the railways in Wales and elsewhere. I appeal to the Government to reconsider their investment programme if the £238 million is intended for more than one year.
In the context of integrating services in Wales, we need the development of a passenger transport authority and an authority for freight. Under the 1968 Act it is possible for the Secretary of State to bring about a Welsh passenger transport authority by means of a Statutory Instrument. This is a possibility which has been developed in the larger metropolitan-dominated areas. If that Act is not used for the circumstances in Wales, people are bound to fear that it was not designed for Welsh needs.
In a letter dated 21st July 1972, the Welsh Office acknowledged that circumstances change from time to time and said that it would reconsider the possibility of a Welsh passenger transport authority as circumstances changed. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to give further thought to that now in view of the possible cutbacks in Wales in terms of a railway transport system.
We need air links. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) refer to the possibility of an aerodrome in every backyard. We do not regard Valley, Aberystwyth or Swansea as backyards. It is essential to have air transport facilities if those places are to develop as possible centres for economic growth. That is essential, as is the need to link them to an airport of international magnitude as we would wish to see at Rhoose.
The situation with regard to the ports is that we have a huge boundary along the South Wales coast consisting of deep water facilities but these have not been developed to the fullest extent possible. There is a project at Port Talbot which could bring about 1,000 jobs in ship repairing but this has been turned down because one public corporation passes the buck to another. This has gone on for more than a year. There is a possibility of 1,000 jobs being provided at a time when they are needed, and I


urge the Minister to consider again the possibility of ship repairing in the Port Talbot area. I press, too, the needs of Holyhead and the future of this port because it is essential to the whole of the industrial base of Gwynedd.
The Welsh Development Agency has started work, and we wish it well. One job that it will need to do is to develop industrial parks. We recognise the importance of improving the infrastructure, and we need industrial plants. We need centres with facilities for industrial development. We need gas supplies. We fail to get industrial development in some parts because there is no gas supply there. Wales Gas has been unable to do anything about that. We need industrial parks with full electricity facilities. We need industrial parks with common services such as transport, administrative and even canteen facilities, because that can help small companies to set up in those areas.
It is important, in a way that transcends party divisions, to get the right incentive to develop jobs in Wales. We need much more emphasis on business and technical education. We should bring the University of Wales into the work of the Welsh Development Agency. Work is going on at Bangor in the Industrial Development Unit. Ideas put forward there have been developed elsewhere, but they should be used to benefit the local economy. I hope that the Under-Secretary will pass that message on to the Welsh Development Agency.
We want to encourage entrepreneurs as well as development in the public sector. All these aspects underline the need to develop the infrastructure of Wales. We have an opportunity, if we put our minds to it, to overcome the problems that have bogged Wales down for decades. We have lost people because we have not had the jobs for them. If there were a co-ordinated approach and an economic plan with the right investment, we should be able to overcome our problems. I hope that the Government will accept what we say. I suspect that they will not, and if they do not the people of Wales will have to pay the price.

6.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): May I too, Mr. Speaker, congratulate you on your election to the Chair. I am glad to catch your

eye in this the first Welsh debate over which you are presiding. Perhaps it is not inappropriate that I catch your eye, because at one time I was your PPS when we were in Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: In that case, perhaps the hon. Member will bear the Scots in mind as well.

Mr. Jones: I take that broad hint.
I anticipated this debate with a high degree of optimism. The experts who seem consistently to deplore the failure of successive Governments in whatever field one cares to name were going to show us how to create an industrial infrastructure which would make possible the development of a balanced Welsh economy, an infrastructure which included a road, rail and air communications system, no less—though I presumed from the terms of the motion that the well-known insularity of Plaid Cymru Members precluded the use of the sea.
I regret that my optimism was ill founded. From the Opposition Benches I have heard much that would provide the motive power for that well-known means of transport the hot air balloon but little to suggest that the supporters of the motion, and particularly the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), have developed their planning one millimetre beyond the realms of fancy. The hon. Member for Carmarthen made an extraordinary speech, consisting of a number of rhetorical questions and even hyperbole. There was stale prophecy, and it seemed altogether a Cassandra-like speech. It contrasted strangely with the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley).
I find it strange to hear the exponents of a balanced economy talking as though there were a bottomless pit full of gold upon which the Government could call to provide an endless pattern of rail, road and air communications, and suggesting that if such a system were produced all the problems of the world's economies would be solved. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) made that point effectively, although the rest of his speech was a smooth apologia.
Good communications are a vital part of an infrastructure within which an industrial economy can develop, but they are not the total infrastructure. There


are choices that have to be made, and they have to be made within the financial constraints that we face. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has carefully chosen policies that will help to develop a better system of communications and a better industrial infrastructure in Wales while concentrating on the immediate target, which must be the attack against inflation.
The Welsh Office seeks to view transport as a whole. My right hon. and learned Friend has therefore in part reorganised the Department. He has just formed a new Transport Policy Division. It will advise Ministers upon the whole of the transportation system in Wales and its part in the total system of the United Kingdom.
Hon. Members know that the recently allocated transport supplementary grants were extremely favourable overall to the Welsh counties. Hon. Members know also, I am sure, that the Welsh counties have considerable freedom to decide their own roads priorities. It is for them to decide how to spend the allocation. The allocation of the transport supplementary grant in Wales has been particularly favourable to the sparsely-populated areas. Gwynedd and Powys benefited most of all from the new formula which indirectly helps, in these areas, to maintain the jobs of those employed in transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) fought very hard to get an allocation which would safeguard the jobs of his constituents. I know that he welcomes the allocation to Powys.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the transport supplementary grant. On behalf of the people of North Gwent I should like to say how grateful we are for the help we have had from the Welsh Office over the A467 from Crumlin to north of Aberbeeg, locally known as the "Khyber Pass". As a result of the grant it is hoped that we can start on the road either this year or next.

Mr. Jones: I can confirm that that is the situation so far as the Gwent Transport Committee is concerned. I

know the situation better since I took a journey along the "Khyber Pass" and saw the horrific dangers. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) for the conscientious and diligent campaign he has conducted. I hope he can now say that he has realised his objective.
It is folly to presume that the road building programme can escape the need to contain public expenditure. But top priority has been given to the M4. This will be followed by the dualling of the A55 from Chester to Bangor and the improvement of the A48 to Carmarthen and the A40 beyond.

Sir A. Meyer: Can the Minister insert a date into that sentence?

Mr. Jones: I wish that I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman, not because I cannot give him a date but because I hope later to give dates for some areas in which he is interested.
There are some 30 miles of the M4 currently under construction in Wales at an overall cost of about £100 million. We are determined to follow an east-west road strategy. The M4 will make a dramatic contribution to the economy of all of South Wales. When it is completed, priority will be given to improving the A48 and A40 across Dyfed. This will include bypasses of St. Clears and Carmarthen on which work should start in 1978 or 1979, subject to the satisfactory completion of all the usual statutory procedures. The schemes which I have just mentioned should cost a total of about £9 million.
In order to make sure that funds are used to the best effect, my right hon. and learned Friend has recently carried out a detailed review of the relative priorities to be accorded to schemes under preparation so that resources are concentrated on those which are needed first. He has taken the opportunity to consider whether changing circumstances have shifted the balance in favour of deferring some schemes so that others, for which there is a greater need and a greater likely cost benefit, can be included. In all, 17 schemes worth an estimated £128 million have been added to the preparation pool and further preparation work on nine schemes worth about £14 million in total has been deferred. This does not involve an increase


in planned public expenditure since we are talking of preparation, and expenditure at this stage is low for some years.
This redirection reflects our determination to improve the system in North Wales. For example, the Queensferry Flyover has been added to the firm programme and, subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary statutory procedures, I hope that we shall be able to start work on this important and urgent scheme costing £2½ million before the end of the 1977–78 financial year. The hon. and learned Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) presented a list of queries, and I must write to him about them.
The complicated and long public inquiry into the proposals for the Colcon scheme is now virtually over, and I hope that it will be possible to find a satisfactory solution to the very difficult problems involved so that work can start on the first stage in 1978–79. I also hope that we shall be able to start other major schemes on the A55 in the St. Asaph-Bodelwyddan-Abergele area costing nearly £5 million at about the same time, together with the Caernarfon inner relief road at a cost of £5½ million.
Apart from the schemes which I have mentioned, work is proceeding on the preparation of proposals for completing dual carriageways for the whole of the A55 from Chester to the Britannia Bridge. We hope to start work on this bridge costing a total of about £10½ million in 1978, provided that the financial situation does not deteriorate further. Work is also virtually completed on the dualling of the road from Drome Corner to Cheshire at a cost of £2 million. The road, which should be open on 1st March, will considerably improve access to the Shotton steelworks and the newly-designated industrial estate at Sealand. I am sure that there is no need for me to remind the House of the severe financial constraints under which we are working and that these forecasts of starting dates depend upon there being no further worsening of this situation.
Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) and the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), raised questions concerning the railways.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Mr. Geraint Howells rose

Mr. Jones: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman but he should know, as Mr. Speaker has warned me, that another tribe and another race have the next debate and if I give way I shall take time from that debate.

Mr. Howells: In his summing up the Minister made no mention of Mid-Wales. Does he have any plans to improve the roads system in Mid-Wales?

Mr. Jones: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman telling him the plans for roads in Mid-Wales.
As far as railways are concerned, a great deal of discussion recently, both within this Chamber and elsewhere, has centred on rumours of cuts in the network. I can only repeat that the Welsh Office takes the keenest interest in the functioning of the railway in Wales, that we regard it as vital and that we are not aware of any proposals to close lines in Wales. The House will know that a consultative document will be published. The hon. Member for Conway did not press his luck too far in this regard because he knows that round his side's neck is the great albatross of the railway closures which were scheduled under the now famous Dr. Beeching reports. We shall always have those in mind when he makes his speeches on railways in the months ahead.
I shall deal now with South Wales generally. We are concentrating on the M4 and the A48, which already include good road links with the Midlands and the rest of England, as well as a much improved A470 serving as a route to North Wales—not that we have any intention of dualling from Cardiff to Wrexham as the hon. Member for Carmarthen said. The mind boggles at the consequences of that and I am sure that on reflection he would not wish to drive a dual carriageway right through the Brecon Beacons. He would know the hornets' nest that he would stir up if he thought of doing that through that beautiful park.
A major development on the railways has been a substantial investment of some planned £40 million, which must be shared with Bristol as well as with South Wales, on the development of the high-speed passenger train which will come into service between South Wales and London later this year. There will be a


full service, I am told, in May 1977, cutting the fastest journey time by half an hour. The line to Paddington will be the first to enjoy the considerable benefits from this exciting advance in railway technology.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East certainly knows his railway industry and, I dare say, his timetables. It is clear that he had the details of the railway industry in his mind from the shrewd remarks that he delivered to us.
I shall deal briefly with West Wales. It has suffered from relative remoteness. This must decline as the M4 is completed, as the high-speed train reaches Swansea and as the Carmarthen bypass and improvements in the St. Clears area materialise. There has been an encouraging development in the establishment of a licensed aerodrome at Withybush near Haverfordwest. This was licensed in February 1974 and is making a useful contribution to communications in that area. There has been an encouraging growth in traffic and there are grounds for hope that before long there might be regular third-level services between Withybush and Rhoose Airports as well as other parts of Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Cardigan mentioned Mid-Wales. I well understand the transport problems of ordinary people in sparsely populated rural areas and recognise the importance of the railways in providing the main public transport links with other parts of the country. In addition, the Government are taking a lead in experimentation with less conventional systems in order to find a cheaper and more effective means of satisfying the needs of the more remote communities. Special projects are being set up—one will be in Wales—to test various possibilities on the ground, and the Government will bring forward a Bill to test under controlled conditions modest relaxations of the bus licensing code in the selected areas, one of which will be in Wales. I know that this will be of interest to the hon. Members for Cardigan and Caernarvon.
I turn briefly to North Wales. I am very pleased to see in today's Liverpool Daily Post that Clwyd County Council feels it can look forward to an increased

road-building programme because of the approach that the Welsh Office has taken on transport supplementary grant. It seems that a start can be made on the Holt-Farnden bypass in 1978–79 and that the Ffynnongroew bypass and Bangor-on-Dee bridge, costing about £1½ million each, can be started in the coming year. I think that this go-ahead council is to be congratulated on the way it gets on with the job of solving its transport problems. Industrialists in that area will, I know, welcome the attention being paid to improving access to the M6.
In North Wales, too, the port of Holyhead clearly has an assured future, although we were all disappointed by the decline in the container traffic and the troubles to do with Ireland. However, British Rail has already undertaken major investments in the port and is building a new multi-purpose ship to come into operation next year which will help to make a better and more efficient use of the facilities at Holyhead. I know that that would be of interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who has over the years fought like a lion for that port. I understand that a private group is negotiating with British Rail with the objective of reopening the cattle traffic at the port. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey supports efforts in that direction.
In that part of the world—in Gwynedd—in civil aviation and with the permission of the commanding officer a good deal of use is made of RAF Valley aerodrome for special charter and business executive flights. The recent establishment of an air taxi firm will do much to encourage a better use of the facilities available in the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has for a long time made his position clear on Newport Docks. I can well understand the natural concern of hon. Members who represent South Wales constituencies about the decline in trade at Newport, which largely reflects the general recession. The British Transport Docks Board is confident that new traffic will be attracted to the area and that the group as a whole will quickly recover its prosperity and continue to serve not only its immediate hinterland


but a much wider area as efficiently as it has done in the past.
A few words are required from me about the important matter of Rhoose Airport. I am well aware of the keen interest of all hon. Members representing constituencies in South Wales, the local authorities and many others in the future of this airport. I recollect the remarks of hon. Members for Barry (Sir R. Gower) and Carmarthen, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Swansea, East. Strong arguments are being advanced in support of the consortium's application for Government financial assistance. However, the case did not meet the strict criteria applied to such cases.
The grant decision does not in any way prejudice the claims of Rhoose in the Government's present consideration of future civil airport strategy, because its capacity and considerable potential to handle modern aircraft and a much greater volume of traffic, both passenger and freight, are well known and will be taken fully into account. A consultative document will shortly be issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
The motion is somewhat melodramatic and, in the true sense of the word, irresponsible. The National Party will not have to grapple with the difficult problems inherent in government in these times. The record of the Government and previous Labour Administrations in 1964 and 1966 is very creditable. Indeed, the hon. Member for Carmarthen could not speed his way along the St. Asaph Bypass, the Abergele Bypass and the Mold Bypass had it not been for the decisions made by the then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey. Nor could we have seen the great industrial estate of Wrexham which was planned and started under the previous Labour Administration in the late 1960s.

Again, a Labour Government initiated work on the M4 and the Severn Bridge which led to untold advantages. One inference that could be drawn from what was said by the hon. Member for Carmarthen was that he did not want the Severn Bridge but would have preferred the reincarnation of the old Mumbles tram service. That is a wretched order of priority for Wales. The hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of his speech. It was silly and totally inappropriate for what Wales requires in the decades ahead. When he reads his Cassandra-like speech tomorrow he will flush with shame. All Wales will heave a great sigh that a leader such as he should be leading the National Party and not controlling the fortunes of our country.
To sum up, I shall set out our priorities. The first must be, at a time of economic crisis, to use all moneys most effectively. We shall continue to pursue an east-west strategy in North and South Wales, while not neglecting the north-south links We appreciate the importance of our existing rail network and we shall greatly benefit from the service of the high-speed train. Because of the importance we attach to transport, and because we know that communications are vital to safeguard and create jobs, we have set up a new Transport Policy Division in the Welsh Office.
No real grounds have been advanced to persuade us to accept the terms of the motion, and I hope that the House will utterly reject it.
Question put,
That this House deplores the failure of successive Governments in not creating an industrial infrastructure for Wales which includes a road, rail and air communications system and which would make possible the development of a balanced Welsh economy:—
The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 242.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[7.02 p.m.


Crawford, Douglas
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Welsh, Andrew


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
MacCormick, Iain
Wigley, Dafydd


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Farr, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)



Freud, Clement
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Thompson, George
Mrs. Margaret Bain and


Hooson, Emlyn
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mr. Douglas Henderson


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Watt, Hamish





NOES


Abse, Leo
George, Bruce
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian


Allaun, Frank
Gilbert, Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Ovenden, John


Archer, Peter
Golding, John
Padley, Walter


Armstrong, Ernest
Gould, Bryan
Palmer, Arthur


Ashton, Joe
Gourlay, Harry
Park, George


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Graham, Ted
Parry, Robert


Atkinson, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pavitt, Laurie


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Grocott, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Hardy, Peter
Perry, Ernest


Bates, Alf
Harper, Joseph
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bean, R. E.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Price, William (Rugby)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Radice, Giles


Bishop, E. S.
Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Miss Jo


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Horam, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Booth, Albert
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Huckfield, Les
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Rooker, J. W.


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rose, Paul B.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Rowlands, Ted


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Sedgemore, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Selby, Harry


Buchanan, Richard
Janner, Greville
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Jegar, Mrs Lena
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Campbell, Ian
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sillars, James


Cartwright, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Silverman, Julius


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Skinner, Dennis


Clemitson, Ivor
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Small, William


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Kelley, Richard
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell
Snape, Peter


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Conlan, Bernard
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Lambie, David
Stallard, A. W.


Corbett, Robin
Lamborn, Harry
Stoddart, David


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lamond, James
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Leadbitter, Ted
Stott, Roger


Crawshaw, Richard
Litterick, Tom
Strang, Gavin


Cronin, John
Luard, Evan
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Hugh
Swain, Thomas


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Davidson, Arthur
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davis, Clinton (Hack[...]ey C)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tierney, Sydney


Deakins, Eric
Maclennan, Robert
Tinn, James


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Tomney, Frank


Delargy, Hugh
McNamara, Kevin
Torney, Tom


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Madden, Max
Tuck, Raphael


Dempsey, James
Magee, Bryan
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Simon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dormand, J. D.
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marquand, David
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dufty, A. E. P.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ward, Michael


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watkins, David


Eadie, Alex
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Watkinson, John


Edge, Geoff
Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Meacher, Michael
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
White, James (Pollok)


Ennals, David
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Whitlock, William


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Farr, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Flannery, Martin
Molloy, William
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Moonman, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Woof, Robert


Ford, Ben
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Forrester, John
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King



Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freeson, Reginald
Ogden, Eric
Mr. James Hamilton and


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr. Donald Coleman.

Question accordingly negatived.

SCOTTISH ECONOMY

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I beg to move,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland should be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
First, I convey to the Conservative Party the thanks of my hon. Friends and myself for making a Supply Day available to Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party. Although it could be argued that damage is done to the democratic process of the House of Commons when the minority parties are denied Supply Days, I fully accept that by the existing procedures the Conservative Party could have maintained its exclusive position. Therefore, its gesture is all the more appreciated.
I should draw attention to an alteration in the wording of the motion. Originally it called for the reduction of the Secretary of State's salary by 50 per cent. It now seeks a reduction of £1,000. That change does not imply any shift in our attitude to the Scottish Office or the Government. The change has been made because we have been informed that the Secretary of State has already drawn over half his salary for this year and that next year's salary has not been voted.
It is my intention to deal with the Scottish economy, but I hope that the House will not feel that I am narrowing the debate if I refer for a moment to my constituency. The current unemployment figure is over 21 per cent. I can appreciate the anxiety of right hon. and hon. Members when they see unemployment figures climbing to 10 per cent., but if we could achieve that sort of unemployment level in the Western Isles we would regard it as unprecedented prosperity. I do not think that anyone living in the Western Isles has seen the figure as low as that.
What urgent steps are the Government taking to deal with that problem? It seems that they are taking precisely none, except for vague references to the Highlands and Islands Development Board and its powers. I asked the Secretary of State in a Written Question what plans he had for assisting the building of township roads in the Western Isles. I raised

the matter because many roads do not now exist, and many others are in urgent need of repair. The construction of township roads would be a step towards relieving the unemployment figures. The Minister of State, Scottish Office replied:
Schemes put forward by the Islands Council within the framework of its approved transport policies and programme will be eligible for the grants which are available for this purpose."—
[Official Report, 21st January 1976; Vol. 903, c. 474.]
With indifference on that scale the Government should be obliged to declare their lack of interest.
The Labour Party in Scotland has issued a document that purports to show why an independent Scotland would be worse off than the present Scotland. I do not intend to deal with that document in any detail, but there are several fundamental questions that could be asked in challenging the proposition. For example, why are the Scandinavian countries, with fewer resources than Scotland, enjoying a higher standard of living? Why have they enjoyed that situation for a long time? Why should Scotland be in its present plight when official figures show that compared with England the Scots export more per head and save more per head? Why should the depressing forecast have validity when it is clear from official figures that Scotland can feed its own people? I regret to say that that is now beyond the capacity of England.
It is a fact that a basic resource is in strong demand in the modern world. Does not the oil situation, make a nonsense of the Government's scenario? We have been assured by the Government that oil will be the salvation of the United Kingdom economy, but, according to the Government, for oil to be recognised as a Scottish resource is a snare and a delusion in economic terms.
Would a Scottish Government have supported the plans of the British Steel Corporation to close down plants showing a profit? That is what took place when steel was nationalised on a British basis. It was clear that when the day came for retrenchment it would be the Scottish end of the industry that would suffer the highest cuts. Would a Scottish Government have shelved the Oceanspan project? Would a Scottish Government have acquiesced in the gross underdevelopment at Hunterston? Would they have


accepted the EEC fisheries policy? Would a Scottish Government have sat supinely over the sort of deprivation that has been confined almost entirely to the west of Scotland?
I desist from asking further questions because I could take up the whole of this debate. As The Scotsman wrote in an editorial:
The fruits of dependence are sour.
The case for self-government rests on political, not economic, grounds. Some may argue that self-government is better than good government, but the choice which confronts Scotland now is between self-government and bad government. Nowhere is this more evident than in the mismanagement of the Scottish economy—the failure over the years to provide an environment for economic growth, and thus to provide continuing employment and a rising living standard for our people. The record is so poor that, to put it at its lowest, it is safe to say that no Scottish Government could do worse.
In the long run the standard of living of a society is the product of the effort, skill and judgment of its members, but in a modern economy the Government set the environment within which procedures in both private and public sectors operate. Today, all Western European Governments exert a good influence on their economies, their taxation, regulation of pricing and investment, controls of bank lending and of hire-purchase, and in various other ways. These Governments accept the responsibility for the performance of their economies, and the British Government cannot escape from their responsibility for what has happened in the Scottish economy since the war.
Let us take Japan as an example. It is a country with few raw materials, defeated in war, many thousands of miles from the world's markets, and yet it is the third largest industrial Power in the world. That has occurred because Japan's Government and people have had the intention of making a go of things. That is what Scotland could do if we had a Scottish Government.
Successive British Governments have totally failed to provide an environment within which the Scottish economy could develop a capacity for self-sustaining growth. The consequence has been record

levels of emigration, record losses of jobs, and the lowest rate of economic growth in any country in Europe. Within Scotland the combination of exceptional deprivation with grim employment prospects underlines the particular failure to come to grips with the problem of the West Central Region despite 30 years of trying within the framework of the Union. Successive British Governments have failed to prompt growth in the Scottish economy because they have never tried. There are no special secrets or mysterious ingredients in the process of economic growth. All the other small countries of Western Europe have successfully set in motion programmes of economic growth.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The hon. Gentleman is developing a most interesting argument, but I am not entirely clear whether he is arguing that the British Government have failed in the management of the British economy, or whether, in managing the British economy, the Government have discriminated against Scotland. Will he make the situation clear?

Mr. Stewart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the attitude of the British Government. We are saying that in a free Scotland we would make decisions for the Scottish people.
As a result the other small countries in Western Europe have overtaken us in their standard of living. The Scandinavian countries have long ago left us behind, while the Republic of Ireland will overtake the United Kingdom within five years. Since the war successive British Governments have carried out sporadic measures which they call "regional policy". These measures are not designed to promote economic growth but simply to alleviate unemployment—unemployment incurred by the British Government's past failure to promote economic growth. The car factory in the 1960s and the aluminium smelter in the 1970s were installed not for the economic benefit of Scotland but for the political convenience of the party in power.
In the devolution debate the question of Dounreay was raised. The answer to that question was provided by Sir Christopher Hinton, a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority. He said that that plant would not go to


Caithness because there was a certain degree of danger. Therefore, many of these projects have come to Scotland because of factors other than any attempt to float the Scottish economy.

Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman raises the interesting subject of Dounreay. Will he inform the House whether it is official SNP policy to seek the removal of Dounreay from that sphere of operations in an independent Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: No. It is not. The point I make is that that was the reason given by the then chairman of the AEA rather than any idea of providing jobs.
On the contrary, the loss-making sectors of the Scottish economy have expanded all the time—from coal and shipbuilding to steel and motor cars. It is a measure of the Government's contempt for the Scottish people that they should suppose that the greater the subsidy the greater the benefit. In perpetuating low productivity and low-wage fixing the Government are doing the greatest harm to the Scottish economy. Needless to say, the Government have done nothing whatever to develop within the Scottish economy the capacity to generate new jobs in the high productivity high-wage bracket.
Periodic deflation in the 1950s and 1960s whenever the south-east of England overheated meant substantial unemployment in Scotland. On those occasions we had to take the medicine for any weakness that hit the South-East of England. If the economic consequences of the Union were allowed to continue, all viable economic activity in Scotland would die out and the whole population would come to depend on Treasury subsidies. No doubt we should all be expected to be extremely grateful for that generosity.
We want the right to earn our own living by putting our own resources to work. Freed from the strategy of Whitehall, we can do it. That will come from our own freedom to choose the policies that suit our own needs, a freedom which only a sovereign Government can possess.
Contact between Stockholm and Oslo is a matter of daily routine, but at present consultation between civil servants and Ministers in the Scottish Office and their

Whitehall counterparts is a one-way dialogue.
The Labour Party has suggested that no further economic powers can be devolved to a Scottish Assembly
without endangering the essential economic unity of the United Kingdom".
Nobody in Scotland will allow this empty, meaningless phrase to stand in the way of badly needed rebuilding of our economy.
All that the Government have to offer is the Scottish Development Agency, whose powers in relation to the desperate situation in West Central Scotland are as helpful as are the powers of a bandage in curing a cancerous growth. Office jobs, though welcome as a stopgap, do nothing to aid the economy to grow.
Nobody should underestimate the boost to the Scottish morale of a Scottish Government. We should show the world what the Scottish people can plan and bring to fruition for our people. Westminster rule means stagnation and decay. A new Scotland under a Scottish Government is essential if our country is to have any reasonable existence for its people.

7.28 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I am disappointed at the enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) in seeking to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if the motion succeeded tonight, it would be very much harder on the taxation department than it would be on the Secretary of State.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and his party got the motion wrong. I excuse them for that, but I regret the lack of judgment shown by the hon. Gentleman in his analysis of the situation he sought to survey.
In the middle of the hon. Gentleman's remarks I began to wonder what country he was talking about. On other occasions the hon. Gentleman has spoken of the fascinating prospect of a Scottish army, a Scottish air force and a Scottish navy. I thought that one day Scotland might even hear "Donald, where's your 'cruisers'?" In a recent debate the hon. Gentleman also mentioned Scottish customs posts.
The House tonight is ostensibly debating the Scottish economy, although it will be a somewhat truncated discussion. Let there be no doubt that the real purpose of the SNP is to air yet again its slogans of separatism and its glowing promises of what is to happen. The SNP would have us believe that under an independent Government Scotland would be considerably healthier. No doubt SNP members are convinced that under their policies Scotland could have been isolated from the world recession.
What policies do the SNP put forward to deal with the situation? I defy anyone to tell us what their policies are.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Mr. Gordon Wilson (Dundee, East) rose—

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman can give way as much as he likes but I shall take my dictates from the Chair.
Anyone who listened to the well-read speech of the hon. Member for Western Isles will know that he did not indicate the policies of the Scottish National Party or the consequences of separation. I have heard nothing from the hon. Member for Western Isles or his colleagues to indicate that they have any credible policy. It is time they produced a White Paper—a tartan one if they like—giving the Scottish people the facts about separatism, its consequences and its dangers. I challenge them to do so.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Mr. Gordon Wilson rose—

Mr. Ross: I have not finished yet. I shall deal with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). He was on his feet denying the existence of certain documents when his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) was rising to tell us what was in these documents. Why will they not publish these documents? It is most interesting. Only the other day the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire made a speech telling us about the strong pound, and so on. He expressed his confidence in financial management after self-government and said:
We are strongly of the view that it will be advantageous, initially, to try to keep the Pound Scots at parity with the Pound Sterling.

He said that because he knew that otherwise unemployment would result. He continued:
the reason for keeping the rate aligned to sterling would be to protect Scotland's principal labour-employing manufacturing industries from the effects of an effective upward revolution on their export prospects".

Mr. Douglas Crawford: Read on.

Mr. Ross: Why not? The whole of Scotland can read on. Why did the Scottish National Party not publish the document? It did not do so because it would be far too embarrassing. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen say that they do not know Scotland's trade position with the rest of the world; they expect us to find it out for them. Tonight they tell us nobly and bravely about Scotland's export position when in this document, produced by a working party of which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire is a member, they say that they do not know. They are conning the people of Scotland into tartan chaos. The people of Scotland will give them their answer.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am not sure whether the Secretary of State was making the offer seriously, but as the Government these days tend to use the Post Office for propaganda purposes and for issuing their own White Paper, will he assure us that if the Scottish National Party produces a White Paper as he evidently wishes us to produce, he will give it the same distribution as that for Labour Party propaganda.

Mr. Ross: We hear that from the hon. Member for Dundee, East, who said in the House that these papers did not exist. The embarrassment is obvious. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his party are mixed up.
We must face the facts of the situation. We need to look away beyond Scotland. The origins of high unemployment are to be found in the economic difficulties which almost all industrialised countries, including the whole of the United Kingdom, have had to face. Hon. Gentlemen compare Scotland—a country with concentrated industries and centuries of tradition and older industries—with Norway. They should be ashamed to suggest that that has any relevance to our


situation. These difficulties began with mounting world inflation, later aggravated by the tremendous rise in oil prices which began in 1973. Hon. Gentlemen must face the fact that they have to tackle this problem from their present position. These factors led to an economic crisis in the Western world and resulted in the most serious world recession that we have seen since the war.
With falling domestic demand and a 9 per cent. drop in world trade—the first absolute fall for 30 years—unprecedented post-war unemployment rates were reached in almost all Western countries. In Canada the unemployment rate rose as high as 7·2 per cent., which is higher than the present rate of unemployment in Scotland. In the United States, it reached almost 9 per cent. and in Denmark almost 14 per cent. It would be idle to suppose that the Scottish economy could be insulated from such development. Indeed, it has not been, and I am well aware of the seriousness of the present situation, especially with regard to unemployment in west and central Scotland. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the increase in unemployment in Scotland has been substantially less than in most other parts of the United Kingdom.
The unemployment relative—which expresses seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland as a percentage of the comparable Great Britain rate—has fallen from 143 in January 1975 to 120 at present. Many of us remember when it was double that of the United Kingdom. The present level is the lowest since this series was first recorded in 1954. This is in stark contrast to the 1971–72 recession, when no such favourable movement was recorded. Despite the widespread nature of the current recession, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland is still below the levels reached in that recession. In 1971 there were no balance of payments difficulties, no world recession and no rise in oil prices.
The reasons for the slower rise in Scottish unemployment are important. North Sea oil has obviously been a major influence, with about 50,000 jobs created directly and indirectly. Those who advocate a slower rate of depletion—the Scottish National Party, which tabled this motion—should bear in mind the employment consequences. It would also affect the employment viability of

exploiting some of the smaller finds. Therefore, the members of the Scottish National Party change their tune from one part of the country to another, and from one constituency to another. What they are suggesting is not to the advantage of Scotland.
Another factor underlying the relative strength of the Scottish economy during this recession has been the effects of regional policies which have done much to create a greater resilience. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Western Isles say anytthing about that. I bet he does not say to the Highlands and Islands Development Board the same scathing things as he said here tonight. Those who support the case for a separate Scotland would do well to bear this in mind. Regional policy and separation are incompatible. We cannot have regional policies as we know them under a separate Scotland.
The outlook for the Scottish economy depends to a large degree on developments in the United Kingdom and the world economy. There are now signs that output is recovering in many industrial countries and that this is being accompanied by a recovery in the volume of world trade. In the United Kingdom, the recession appears to be reaching a bottom, and output seems to be stabilising, although in view of lags between changes in output and changes in employment it is fair and right to say that it may be some time before the effects are seen in terms of reduced unemployment.

Mr. lain MacCormick: I am interested in the Minister's statement that we could not have regional policies under any type of devolved power or separate Government. The present Government have introduced a Scottish Development Agency to Scotland, yet they have retained the Highlands and Islands Development Board which, I agree, is an excellent institution. Why could we not continue to have that with an independent Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that basic to regional policy is the fact that we must control developments in the more prosperous parts of the United Kingdom. Industry must be steered directly. We must have incentives to that end which are both positive and negative. A Scottish independent Government sitting in Edinburgh could


not have such control throughout the rest of the country.
This, then, is the situation that we face. It is certainly not a situation which allows of complacency. We know that the Scottish people are dissatisfied with the situation, and have a right to be, but we also know that the improvement that everyone wants will not be brought about by the simple act of separation or the deceptive benefits that are said to flow from it.
As a Government we are pledged to reduce unemployment. But industry cannot thrive or expand unless it is competitive in price. The first priority, therefore, must be to reduce inflation from its present level which, though it now shows signs of reducing, together with our serious balance of payments difficulties, has ruled out immediate general reflation. However, we are working towards that position with success.
Our policies have been directed towards these fundamental problems in the economy, but we have introduced selective measures to protect employment and maintain industrial capacity. The House is well aware of these—the temporary employment subsidy, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, the job creation programme, aid to the construction industry, and the provision of increased funds for training, particularly of the young.
These measures have been in operation for only a short time, but from them have come 6,000 jobs which would otherwise not exist in Scotland. A week ago the Chancellor told the House that he would shortly be bringing forward further measures.
The only long-term solution to our problem lies in increasing our investment substantially in new types of industry and increasing productivity to match that of our competitors. That is what we have been doing in Scotland. We have been changing the whole pattern of Scottish industry over the past 10 to 15 years, and with considerable success, which the SNP should not ignore.
The Government's regional policy has a large part to play in this matter. Independent research has shown that 70,000 jobs were created in Scotland in the 1960s under regional policies.

Mr. Crawford: How many were lost?

Mr. Ross: There would have been more difficulties regarding unemployment if we had not introduced our regional policy. The hon. Gentleman proclaimed the merits of our policy when he was endeavouring to attract industry to Scotland.
Since the Industry Act came into force in 1972, selective financial assistance of £60 million has been offered for 500 Scottish projects, involving over £500 million of investment and 48,000 jobs. As well as enhancing job opportunities, these policies have helped to improve the wage differential. I have heard SNP Members constantly refer to low wages in Scotland. That gap has been closed. I gather that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire may speak later. He embarrasses me, because he calls himself a Scot.
Too many people refuse to recognise the benefits of regional policy and of the jobs created. Regional policy, successful as it has been, is incompatible with independence. Therefore, those people ignore the facts.
With the whole of Scotland a development area, we have been able to use the full benefits of regional aid. As my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said in the debate on the Devolution White Paper, there has been a substantial transfer of resources from the prosperous parts of England to Scotland and Wales. Identifiable public expenditure per head in Scotland amounted to £636 in 1974–75, compared with £545 in England. To have maintained this level of expenditure in an independent Scotland would have meant higher taxation. Who should know better than the hon. Member for Western Isles that it costs far more to maintain standards of education and of health services in his remote areas. I have heard it whispered by some SNP Members that they would not get the same deal from an independent Scottish Parliament as they would from elsewhere. The fact is that they would have to accept lower standards of education, roads, health services and industrial support.
Even with the enormous difficulties that we have faced in the general world recession, we have scored some significant successes. In the past nine months decisions have been made by the Digital Equipment Corporation to bring about


500 jobs to Ayr; by Singers to transfer about 300 jobs from West Germany to Clydebank; and by General Motors at Newhouse to expand by 400 to 500 jobs.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: What about Honeywell?

Mr. Ross: What about Honeywell? Sneers and rumours. I take the advice of my hon. Friend who represents the area, not the hon. Gentleman. There is Tannoy Products, with 200 new jobs at Coatbridge; Borbe Wanner, of Switzerland, with employment for about 100 at Irvine; Metal Box, involving about 100 new jobs at Springbum; and Air Products, with 100 new jobs at Cumbernauld. I could go on with the list of successes in regional policy which the SNP would destroy.
Over 50,000 jobs have been created in the last few years in Scotland, with the oil developments. Let no one belittle what has been done. The evidence of the success of the Government's regional policies as part of the United Kingdom framework is there for everyone to see. That work is going on.
The Government have made their direct contribution with the dispersal of 31,000 Civil Service jobs from London, announced in July 1974. I think that we should publish some of the letters we get from hon. Gentlemen opposite asking that some of these dispersals should go to their areas. The dispersal of 31,000 Civil Service jobs from London, announced in July 1974, is the biggest dispersal exercise undertaken in peace time. With 7,000 jobs coming to the Glasgow area, Scotland will get 23 per cent. of the jobs involved.
On Tuesday we announced that we had decided to locate 4,500 of the jobs from the Ministry of Defence in a new office block at the St. Enoch Station site, in central Glasgow. If SNP Members do not appreciate that, I assure them that the people and the Lord Provost of Glasgow do. There will be 650 jobs from the Ministry of Overseas Development at East Kilbride. This will help to regenerate the centre of Glasgow and provide a boost to commercial life there and in East Kilbride. It will bring benefits to the whole of West Scotland. Decisions on the remainder of the 7,000 jobs will be taken soon. [Interruption.] The hon.

Member for Western Isles was not all that good on his feet; I wish that he would shut up now that he is sitting down. These are additional to our earlier decisions to locate the British National Oil Corporation, the Offshore Supplies Office and the headquarters of the Scottish Development Agency in Glasgow. Taken together, all these decisions in the public sector are bringing many thousands of jobs to the Strathclyde Region and will help Glasgow and the west of Scotland to become an even more important centre of Government administration.
Would these jobs have come to Scotland under separation? The Ministry of Defence would not have come to Glasgow; the National Engineering Laboratory would not be at East Kilbride; and the Post Office would not be at Cowglen. These decisions are the direct result of United Kingdom Government policies, which we shall continue to pursue.
Separatism would not be an answer to the major problems of Scotttish industry. We have not heard the Scottish National Party's policy on coal, for instance. What about the problems of the railways under a separate Scotland? The future of steel, motor cars and shipbuilding is bound up with the economy of the rest of the United Kingdom and with international competition.
The present production from Scottish steel plants represents about 12 per cent. of total United Kingdom output. Only about 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's consumption of steel is used in Scotland. I have heard calls for a separate Scottish steel industry. The United Kingdom steel industry is an integrated one. In my view, a withdrawal into a separate Scotland would be a distinct disadvantage leading to loss of markets and would put a question mark over the whole modernisation programme.
That programme is going ahead, but the developments at Hunterston, at Clydesdale and Ravenscraig are dependent on an integrated United Kingdom industry. Equally with special steels. Without that integration we could forget Hunterston, because the big new development there is related to the needs of the United Kingdom, not Scotland. Indeed, the SNP has a past in relation to Hunterston.
Turning to shipbuilding, the reduced demand for tankers and the drop in the level of world trade has thrown up substantial yard capacity, world-wide, which can be used for building new merchant ships. When we realise that the present capacity of Japanese shipyards alone is capable of meeting total current world demand, the size of the problem can be gauged. Anyone who thinks that a separate Scotland would deal successfully with that problem is just not in this world.
The difficulties facing Scottish shipyards in securing orders are not unique. There is a need to consider the solutions to these not on a Scottish or United Kingdom basis, but perhaps on an international basis. We have recently added the Scottish Development Agency to our armoury of weapons, though I do not remember getting full support from the SNP for its establishment. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire voted in Standing Committee against putting back into the Bill powers taken out by the House of Lords.

Mr. Crawford: The Labour Party and its Conservative allies in the Committee voted against giving the SDA more than the paltry sum that it has at its disposal at present.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member did not deal with the point I raised. He voted with the Conservative Party to keep out of the Bill new powers that we had put in but which had been removed by the House of Lords.
The SDA will have a formidable task before it. It is not going to perform miracles, but it will be another means of assisting industrial development and environmental regeneration in Scotland. The Agency is in its infancy, but let no one think that the work has not already begun. It came into being only in December, but has lost no time in getting down to the tasks that face it. Already in these few weeks, it has announced its first programme of 18 advance factories. It is undertaking schemes for environmental improvement at Govan, Airdrie, Galashiels, Galafoot and Greenock. It is devising its overall strategy and assembling manpower resources to implement the strategy. The Agency will be able to provide investment capital, create new

industrial enterprise and enter into joint ventures—all the things that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire voted against.
There has been criticism, largely ill-informed, of the adequacy of the Agency's budget to enable it to tackle the tasks ahead. I assure the House that the effective functioning of the Agency will not be impaired by lack of finance.
It is inevitable that in any debate on the Scottish economy there should be a mention of North Sea oil. This is now a reality, with two fields already in production and more expected to come on stream this year. We estimate that the total output from these fields will meet between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the United Kingdom needs in 1976. We are still on course to meet our target of self-sufficiency by 1980.
The nationalists have a fixation about North Sea oil, but they have overplayed their oil card and certainly their oil posters. Those posters were a disgrace to Scotland. One showed a picture of an old lady with the words:
It's her oil. Why should 5,000 old people die of hypothermia?
The actual figure is nine.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that the figure of 5,000 was extrapolated from the British figure produced by Age Concern? It is the view of that respected organisation that this is the number of people who die from hypothermia.

Mr. Ross: The Registrar-General's figures are produced in Scotland, by Scots, from death certificates signed by Scottish doctors. I shall give hon. Members the true figures. Last year the number of people who died from hypothermia was nine. The year before it was four.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: Some of us are getting a bit cheesed off, to put it mildly, with the right hon. Gentleman's semantics. We all know that hypothermia is a secondary cause in many cases of death from bronchitis, pneumonia and influenza and this has been stated by members of his own party, including the Convener of the Lothian Regional Education Committee.

Mr. Ross: I shall give the hon. Lady the figures produced by the Registrar-General for Scotland. Deaths from hypothermia last year totalled nine, but figures are also given for those cases in which it was a secondary cause. I think they totalled 181. Where does this figure of 5,000 come from? It really is disgraceful. That is why I say they have over-played the oil card.
Superficially, oil and its revenues may appear to give séparatism a certain economic credibility, but, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General demonstrated in the devolution debate last month, there are important economic arguments which the nationalists choose to ignore. To stake Scotland's future on limited reserves of a single commodity that is subject to fluctuations in world prices would be a gamble with Scotland's future. The Scottish people will not respond to the nationalists' demands for separatism. We have made clear that we shall use the oil revenues for the benefit of Scotland and of other areas of the United Kingdom in need of development. Scotland's future lies in the future of the United Kingdom, and the Government will press forward in making it a success.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when I was the sole SNP representative in this House many hon. Members on the Government Benches said that they would agree with me but for their worry about whether Scotland could afford independence. Now the argument appears to be that we are too rich for independence.

Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Lady's point answers itself. We have heard a tale of woe about Scotland having no hope at all at present. I understand that one of the great supporters of the SNP is Sir Hugh Fraser, who has one or two interests outside Scotland. He founded the Fraser of Allander Institute which issued a quarterly economic comment last month, saying:
it is now conceivable to argue that the effects of oil on the Scottish economy, allied with the longer-term structural changes which have occurred over the last decade, have effected a more lasting improvement in the underlying resilience of the economy. There is evidence of a permanent improvement in Scotland's relative economic position.

We must build on that, using the whole strength of this country. I do not want to see Scotland belittled by the kind of politicking we have had from the SNP. Hon. Members in the SNP have asked if I was embarrassed. The answer is "Yes". The sort of things that that party parades and preaches around Scotland embarrasses any patriotic Scotsman.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: When the Scottish National Party first put down its motion, I had great sympathy with the wish to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State by 50 per cent. We have learned tonight that it can only be reduced by £1,000 because that is all he has left of this year's salary. I commiserate with him, but this is typical of the Government. He is obviously living beyond his means if that is all he has left at this stage of the year. I would be rather worried if my household budget was spent at the same rate as the Secretary of State's salary has been spent.
I wish to express my personal appreciation to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) for the remarks he made at the opening of his speech in thanking the official Opposition for making this Supply Day available to the minor parties.
However, I fear that this debate is getting away from the realities of the Scottish economy. The hon. Member's speech was nothing but a greetin' speech. It was an absolute tale of woe from beginning to end, and if that is the kind of Scotland that the hon. Member wants he is welcome to it. It is not the kind of Scotland I was born into and brought tip in. The Scotland we want is one which enjoys good prospects, but the narrow introspection and selfishness which typified the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech is the one thing that will encourage people to leave Scotland and will encourage the kind of emigration which he was condemning. The Secretary of State dealt with the speech very well and showed what a lot of poppycock the hon. Gentleman was speaking.
I turn now to what really matters and what worries us, and that is the state of the economy. I appreciate some of the points the Secretary of State made about


employment and new developments and new industries in Scotland, and I share his view that all in Scotland is not bleak. However, all in Scotland is not well. For that reason we are right to have this debate tonight.
The fact is that the situation in Scotland is at neither one extreme nor the other. It is not the woe of the SNP, and neither is there room for complacency in any sense. The Secretary of State mentioned the report from the Fraser of Allander Institute. Our debate is taking place against a background of unemployment at 160,000 in Scotland, although the hon. Member for Western Isles scarcely mentioned that fact. The institute's report drew attention to the number of good prospects in oil for long-term development both of industry and jobs, but there were other immediate matters to which it drew attention.
First, the report pointed out that new domestic orders for industry in Scotland had deteriorated, that the outlook for exports by Scottish industry was bleaker than in the rest of the United Kingdom and that capital expenditure in Scotland was expected to decline faster than in the rest of the United Kingdom. As a thermometer of optimism in Scottish industry, applications for regional aid, the report said, were declining. That gives cause for concern and is perhaps a much better reason for further debate than was advanced by the hon. Member for Western Isles.
We also have the benefit of the CBI survey which was published only last week, which tells a similar story. It says that employment in manufacturing industry is expected to fall, that plans for new investment are lagging and that forecasts for exports by Scottish firms are disappointing. No one, least of all the Government, can feel complacent about the situation in Scotland. In spite of what was said by the Secretary of State, a lot of the responsibility for this situation lies with the Government.
Tonight the right hon. Gentleman spoke about world influences as though he had only just discovered them. He referred to exploding oil prices in 1972 and 1973. Why did he not talk about them in 1973 when we were the Government? At that time he and his hon. Friends simply
denied that these factors existed. They denied that there were problems with world food prices. They simply said that if anything was wrong it was totally the fault of the Conservative Government. Now the right hon. Gentleman is using those same factors to excuse the performance of his Government.
I shall be fair to the Secretary of State. One of the difficulties of any Government, whether Socialist or Conservative, is that they must deal with a difficult world situation. I only wish that this Government had faced up to that and tackled it, and not added to our problems by making such a mess of the economy at home. Just look at their mismanagement of the economy. Take inflation. The Chancellor told us in October 1974 that it was running at 8 per cent. Of course we did not believe him, but it was not until afterwards that we found that the true figure was nearer 25 per cent. Look at the autumn of 1974 when the Government won the General Election. They had let the economy rip for political reasons since the preceding February when they took office. We ended up in one of the most difficult periods of industrial unrest that Scotland has known for a long time.
As a result of a transport strike, 50,000 people were laid off. At one time 24,000 people were on strike in Scotland in 24 disputes—

Mr. Norman Buchan: What about the miners' strike?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Indeed, what about the miners' strike? Just consider how many people are unemployed today compared even with the time of the three-day working week. The figure now is nearly double, and production is at a lower level than it was then.
Oil offers great prospects for Scotland, but the right hon. Gentleman should go to Aberdeen as I do and talk to those in the industry. The optimism and confidence of a year ago have gone. It is all the fault of the Government. They have interfered with the oil industry and tried to nationalise it. They are taking over interests and they are dithering over licences. There is also the difficulty of platforms. In the white heat of a newly-elected Labour Government there was a great rush to build the platform sites to


meet the tremendous expansion that was expected from the North Sea industry. The sites are now complete, but there are no orders. That is the fault of the Government's mismanagement, interference and dithering.
This difficulty cuts right across the backbone of Scottish industry. It is not the big firms but the smaller concerns which have been bled to death by the Chancellor's taxation policies. I question whether the Government's strategy for Scotland is the right one. Take their policy for the power industry. The House has voted £162 million to Chrysler, part of which will go to Linwood. I accept the need for some resources to deal with the difficult situation. That, however, was why we did not hear enough from the SNP Bench.
What about new jobs in new industry in Scotland? If we are honest, all of us in this House who come from Scotland know that the tragedy of the Scottish economy has been that as a result of two world wars, in which Scottish heavy industry in shipbuilding and engineering contributed to the national effort for national survival, we perpetuated in Scotland an out-of-date industrial economy, for the sake of helping the whole United Kingdom and our own survival, in continuing the support of what I describe as the modern declining industries. Are the Government really giving Scotland the break that it deserves in getting away from the declining industries and getting its economy more strongly and firmly based on the new and expanding industries?
Here we run into the hypocrisy of the SNP. Tonight the hon. Member for Western Isles referred to the car industry as part of the loss-making sector of the Scottish economy, yet he went into the Lobby with the Government to vote on that. Again, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt), in questioning last Thursday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, said:
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the £1624 million recently granted to save Chrysler would have planted nearly a million acres of timber? Does he not agree that there is an urgent need for a rethinking of our entire economic policy?"—[Official Report, 29th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 647.]

We saw the rethinking when SNP Members went into the Lobby with the Government.
SNP Members talk with two voices—one in the north-east of Scotland and another in the industrial west of Scotland. Let them be honest. When they talk with these two voices, the people of Scotland see them for what they are worth. That is why one sees the results in the by-election in the Grampian Region this week, which shows that people are now taking them for their true values and are no longer being taken in.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. SNP Members speak not with two voices on Chrysler but with three voices. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) said that all of the money should go to Linwood and that Coventry should go to the wall.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I agree. I apologise for doing the SNP a disservice in relation to the plurality of voices.
My final point is in relation to the policy and the whole strategy of the Government towards industry. First, are they getting the priorities right in doing this massive propping up of what I describe as the modern declining industries instead of using that money for better value to the people of Scotland in reorganising and helping the industries which are in difficulties but making sure at the same time that we do more to help the modern new industries in Scotland?
Here I turn to the Scottish Development Agency. In relation to the regeneration of industry and jobs in Scotland, I hope that this body will be effective. Tonight we have the Secretary of State's assurance that the effective functioning of the SDA will not be impaired for lack of funds. That is all very well but he is talking merely in generalities. People in industry in Scotland want to know the colour of the SDA's money. In the Act it is specified as £300 million. A circular from the Scottish Office said that this was to be spent over about five years. Never since the Second Reading of the Bill, however, have the Government actually told the House of Commons and Scotland what the budget of that body is to be.
This is not a body that is simply to be used to generate new jobs. It is taking


over jobs from other agencies, such as local authorities, the Scottish Industrial Estates and others, and about £20 million a year will be used to take account of its own running expenses. That is already spoken for in jobs and work already done by other bodies. How much will be used by the SDA to try to encourage new jobs and industry in Scotland?
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has questioned the Minister of State on this matter. The Minister of State said that we had to wait for the public expenditure White Paper. I have written to the Secretary of State about it. I am still awaiting a reply. The whole of Scotland is waiting to know precisely whether this body will be just another white elephant or whether it will be given the tools and the means to do the job.
I believe that the Government are getting matters wrong as regards Scotland. They must not only look fundamentally at their industrial strategy. They must change it towards developing more strongly the resources and money behind the new developing industry, investing in Scotland's future and not in Scotland's past.
It is for those reasons that I believe that the Secretary of State's salary must be reduced.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. David Lambie: In listening to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this evening, I found that I was in agreement with him. I accept that the policies of the present Labour Government, given time, will be successful in Scotland. I accept that the Government have been unfortunate, in this time of severe economic restraint, in meeting an oil crisis that is outside our own control, and with one of the downturns in capitalist economies.
However, at the end of the day when we go back home to Scotland we find that there are still 162,000 unemployed there. As Labour people, we find great difficulty in justifying that figure. The same must apply to my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent areas in the north-west and north-east of England, where unempolyment can be higher than it is in Scotland.
I accept all that, However, my criticism of the present Labour Government is not that their long-term policies are not correct; it lies in the fact that their short-term policies as a Government—and the Secretary of State for Scotland, as a member of the Government, must carry his burden of responsibility—involve trying to run the capitalist system better than the Tories do. We are trying to do it as we did it from 1964 to 1970, and we shall get the same result that we got in 1970—the defeat of the Labour Government at the next General Election—unless we can show results. Such a defeat would not be of any advantage to the people of Scotland, because since the war we have suffered under the Tories more than we have suffered under the policies of any Labour Government.
If the Government want to retain the confidence of the Scottish people, they must examine their short-term financial policies. They must change them. They must realise that we are a Socialist party and are not here to repair the faults in the capitalist system. We are here to introduce a Socialist system of economy. If we do that we shall solve the problems of Britain as a whole.
Although in some respects I agree with certain of the policies of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) in relation to the devolving of power within the United Kingdom, I would never advise anyone in Scotland who is a Socialist and a supporter of the Labour Party to support the SNP. Although the SNP believes in devolving power from Westminster to Edinburgh, its members are still the main supporters and exponents of the capitalist system, because the majority of them are Conservatives. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) is quite a decent Tory. Sometimes when I look across the Chamber at him I realise why he does not seem to be such a Tory, compared with some of the reactionaries such as the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Therefore, I can well understand the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) wondering about the policies of the SNP.
The people in Scotland, especially in the west of Scotland, are being led up the garden path. Because they are dissatisfied with the economic performance of the Labour Government, they are


voting for people who are more reactionary than some Tory Members. One has only to look at the voting record of SNP Members in Parliament, and to read the speeches they have made outside Parliament, to find justification for that statement.
I want to make only two points that affect my area. I represent one of the growth areas of Scotland, where we find difficulty in getting support from Government agencies. They always ask what we are worrying about, when everyone is doing well. But the latest figures show that in this so-called growth area in the west of Scotland there are now 1,652 people unemployed, of whom 1,268 are males. This is an unemployment rate of 14 per cent. in a so-called growth area.
In the Garnock Valley, which will soon be affected by redundancy in the steel industry, the January figures from the labour exchange show 624 unemployed—a rate of 11·3 per cent.
My constituency is not only a growth area; many people living there are now working in Hunterston, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie)—or they hope to get jobs there, having had their jobs in the Garnock Valley area, Kilmarnock, and so forth, made redundant. In the Saltcoats area there are 2,250 unemployed—a rate of 10·4 per cent. These are unemployment figures for a growth area in Scotland.
In our area we are finding great difficulty in achieving any improvement, because of the fact that the infrastructure—the sewerage, drainage and so on—is still comparable to what existed at the end of the last century. The roads of Ayrshire are not much more than modifications of the tracks of over 100 years ago. That is in spite of the fact that within the past 20 years or so we have been lucky enough to have representatives from Ayrshire constituencies in both Conservative and Labour Governments. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) was in the last Conservative Administration. We have had the longest serving Secretary of State for Scotland representing an Ayrshire constituency. Despite this, we are the only major industrial county in Scotland without a connection to any motorway.
It is impossible to build a growth area without a good road system. I ask my
right hon. Friend—or whoever makes the winding-up speech for the Government tonight—to give us an assurance that we shall have motorway connections from the so-called growth areas of Irvine and North Ayrshire to the main motorway system.
We are also affected—as is everyone outside the Glasgow conurbation—by the proposals contained in the Strathclyde Regional Council's regional plan. It will be putting forward a policy under which all the resources in manpower and finance will be spent on the Glasgow conurbation, and suggesting that the Ayrshire people should be prepared to go easy in terms of resources and manpower inside the Strathclyde area, in order to divert resources to the Glasgow area.
As a Socialist, I cannot deny that the Glasgow conurbation is one of the main areas of urban deprivation in the United Kingdom, but my right hon. Friend cannot expect the Labour people in Ayrshire, Lanarkshire and all the areas outside the conurbation to have their standards cut down in order to maintain development in the Glasgow conurbation. Glasgow is not a Strathclyde question. Glasgow, with its urban deprivation, is a British question. My right hon. Friend is always advising me of the advantages of the United Kingdom. I do not want the people in Irvine to have to divert much-needed development in order to help solve the problems of the Glasgow conurbation. I want the whole of the United Kingdom to help solve the problems of the Glasgow conurbation.
The Secretary of State must tell the Strathclyde Regional Council that we shall not accept these policies of spreading the help around while at the same time taking the crumbs away from areas like central Ayrshire and putting them in the Glasgow area. The Glasgow people need help, but it should come not from the surrounding areas but from the main area of the United Kingdom.
I was interested in the statement of the Secretary of State that we need increased investment in new types of industry. A week ago the Convener of Planning in the Strathclyde Regional Council, at a meeting between the new town boards and representatives of the district council, stated that 70,000 jobs will be lost in the Strathclyde area in the next few years. I suggest to my right


hon. Friend that it is all very well telling us about the jobs coming in, but if we are to lose 70,000 jobs simply in order to stand still, there will have to be a greater emphasis on development than we have at the moment.
We need a new industrial base in the west of Scotland. Those who have the magazine Clydeport News will see that in the January issue, under the heading "Photonews", it states that:
Trans-shipments of oil from VLCCs are commonplace nowadays in Clydeport—which is hardly surprising when the deep and sheltered estuary provides such ideal conditions for this kind of operation.
The report goes on:
The 326,000 dwt. 'Universe Korea' was discharging 41,000 tons of her crude oil cargo into the smaller tanker 'Tasman Sea'. The camera went aboard the Adrossan tug Ardneil', which was handling the large buoys ranged along one side of the 'Tasman Sea'.
Here we have a situation in which oil tankers are arriving from all over the world to discharge and trans-ship their cargoes in the best sheltered estuary in Europe, and the only jobs we are getting involve sending a wee tug into Ardrossan harbour.
We are lucky if we get any jobs. The people getting the work are those who are taking part in the refining process, whether in England, in the east of Scotland, in Grangemouth, or in European ports. Why should we give this unique facility of a deep sheltered estuary that only we in Scotland have, to the multinational oil companies, when the only jobs we are getting in our area in Scotland are those connected with a small tug leaving Ardrossan harbour?
The Secretary of State has still not given a decision on the planning application of the Chevron Oil Company in relation to planning developments to build up an oil terminal or oil refineries in the Hunterston area. If my right hon. Friend wants investment, why stop these companies putting millions of pounds into the Hunterston area? This is where he is falling behind the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, on 1st January, when all the Scots were drinking or recuperating from the New Year, gave planning permission for another oil refinery in the Thames area. If that had been built at Hunterston, it would have
provided 3,000 jobs in construction immediately, and eventually a new industrial base.
ICI has said that if it gets a closer source of supply as the byproduct of an oil refinery, it will extend its nylon plant at Ardeer, thus creating another 6001,000 jobs. But that is not happening, because my right hon. Friend has listened co SNP members in North Ayrshire and a handful of Tories in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire.
My right hon. Friend should live up to his word. We need new investment and the industrial base that petrochemicals could give us. Scotland should be not a source of exploitation for the trans-shipment of oil—that is not where the jobs are; she should be an integral part of the oil industry in refining and in the spin-off of petrochemicals. The only future for the west of Scotland is in petrochemicals. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give the go-ahead for the building of the terminal and the refinery, which will go a long way to replacing the 70,000 jobs that the west of Scotland will lose between now and 1981.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Codman Irvine): Order. The closing speeches will start at 9.20. More than 20 hon. Members still wish to speak. I leave the matter in the hands of the House.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: In what I hope will be a brief intervention, I shall have the temerity to give some personal background. Many hon. Members have had careers in other activities before they came here. Although I have been here only two years, I spent over 20 years in line management in Scottish industry. I do not know how many other hon. Members can say that.
It is proper nowadays to make a declaration of interest. During those 20 years I have been a director of two Scottish-registered firms—William Baird of Glasgow and Dawson International of Edinburgh. Both have branch factories in England. I am also on the executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), a body made up of employers,


trade unions, local authorities and many other facets of Scottish life. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), who will be winding up the debate for the SNP, also had an honourable career with that body. In view of his knowledge of Scottish industry, I am at a loss to know how he will get through the bogus speech that he will undoubtedly make.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I too believe in devolution to Scotland of matters like education, local government and transport, but he knows as well as I do that industry and matters relating to the economy cannot be devolved. That is the weakness of the separatist case. The other things have been with us for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, but industry as we know it started after the Union. The Industrial Revolution happened after the Union. There is no Scottish, English or Welsh economy, but only a British economy.
The list of firms registered in Scotland includes Scottish and Newcastle Brewers, Coats Patons, Stenhouse Holdings, Burmah Oil, House of Fraser and the Distillers Company. With separation, the current trading pattern of these British firms south of the border would be impossible. Therefore, industry and economic matters cannot be devolved to any part of Britain. We have only a British economy.
If it were not for that fact, there would be no motor industry in Scotland. Also, the largest concentration of electronic firms outside America is in Scotland—because we are part of the British economy. We in Scotland can have a separate Church and legal system but not a separate economy: there is only one British economy.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: I shall not take up the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve). As this is a short debate I want to concentrate on one subject only, but an important one affecting the whole of the Scottish economy and its ability to prosper, and that is the steel industry, which is in a state of manifest crisis.
Without a viable steel industry geared to the needs of manufacturing industry in Scotland and continuing to serve its traditional customers throughout the

whole of the United Kingdom as well as abroad, there can be no Scottish economy worth discussing. It is a fundamental fact that the steel workers of Lanarkshire and Ayrshire have been trying to register that on the Government's mind for more than a few years. At present there is a large question mark hanging over the steel industry in Scotland. Continuing uncertainty, conflicting rumours and statements by the Government and spokesmen of the British Steel Corporation have reduced the morale of the steel workers to such an extent that they seem anxious only to get out of the industry, and to get out quick.
If the BSC were to offer redundancy pay, the queue would be so long that it is doubtful whether anybody would be left in the industry, and small wonder. The plans which the Corporation has put forward for discussion consign this industry to the scrap heap. Any scheme of rationalisation on a United Kingdom scale immediately threatens the existence of the Scottish plants, because they are the plants that have been woefully neglected and starved of investment where it matters most, and that is in retaining the general product character of the industry—its flexibility.
Because the Corporation—and therefore the Government—has willed it so, the Scottish plants are less efficient. They have the least modern plant. This is death by a process of slow strangulation. The Scottish steel industry was built up over a period of 100 years to become the most flexible and most diversified in the country, and it was able to meet the needs of its customers not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. It had an experience and skilled work force at all levels of operation, and there was a complex of steel-using industries in the surrounding areas all but a tiny fraction of whose raw material needs were being met by local Scottish steelworks. It was what the BSC now calls a jobbing industry.
The Corporation has been bitten by the bug of bigness, and yet even today it is the small flexible mini-steelworks that are the most successful. Any alteration to the pattern of production must not only mean a reduction in the number of steel plants and jobs but must put steel users in Scotland at a grave disadvantage.
Without the wide range of steel products previously available from Scottish works, it will become exceedingly difficult to convince steel users to locate a factory in Scotland. The argument used by the Corporation for closing the works at Craigneuk was that most of that works' customers were in the Midlands and south of England and, therefore, there was an obvious advantage to both steelmakers and steel users in moving the production south. But the extension of that logic would leave Scotland without a steelworks and without a steel user.
The logic used by the Corporation is too narrow, and when applied causes excessive damage to communities and defies a rational Socialist, humane approach to economic management. The mandarins of the Corporation, the Treasury and the Government forget that industry is meant to serve people, not the people to serve the narrow objectives and myopic outlook of industrialists.
We can understand the Corporation's viewpoint. Since the pricing point system came into being, there are advantages in being located close to where steel is being made. If, however, there is no mill in Scotland producing any given product, the nearest mill is probably 250 or 300 miles away and a Scottish steel user has to transport the steel that distance and pay for the transportation. That is why it is so important to maintain an industry capable of producing a wide range of steel products.
We need a two-stage strategy. In the short term we must ensure the continuation of existing furnaces and mills. Some investment will be called for here to make the plants as efficient as possible. The re-routing of orders from Scottish works to works south of the border must stop. There must be a firm commitment by the Government that the Hunterston site will be fully developed as a major centre of crude steel production. With the development of Hunterston and the development of new electric are furnaces, the existing open hearth furnaces can be phased out. There must be a significant investment in more up-to-date rolling mills on existing inshore sites.

Mr. James Dempsey: My hon. Friend is making an

interesting case for the development of a modernised steel complex, but can he say how many jobs would be lost in the process of phasing out?

Mr. Robertson: I cannot give the number of jobs, but it would be a good deal less than could be lost under the present strategy, as my hon. Friend will know, because almost the whole of the steel industry in Coatbridge and Airdrie has been lost.
There is a false belief that development at Hunterston will eliminate the Lanarkshire industry and that, conversely, development in Lanarkshire will cripple the Hunterston development. That need not be so. We need a strategy that uses both the potential of Hunterston and the generations of skill in Lanarkshire. My picture of a Scottish steel industry is one of the production of raw steel in quantity at Hunterston and the routing of primary mill products from there to the new finishing mills to be situated in the existing steel-making centre.
It is not necessary that Scotland should produce only for her own needs. It never was so. Luxembourg is an example of what is possible. Big is not always best. The importance of saving skill is more often than not overstated. That is why the emphasis for Scottish steel must be on flexibility and diversity of product. That is how we can create a basis for industrial expansion in Scotland.
It is easy to speak of regional plans during periods of industrial boom, but the real test of regional policies comes during periods of recession. If industry does not stick then, regional policies are a failure. If there is to be any industrial future for Scotland, the investment plans for the steel industry should be in operation now. They are needed now. We need firm decisions now, based upon a strategy that acknowledges the key rôle that steel plays, and always will play, in the Scottish economy. This strategy and the decisions based upon it have been lacking so far.
The Government can start laying the foundation for a Scottish economic recovery by showing the will to establish a new and up-to-date industry in Scotland. That is the test that the Scottish steel workers are setting the Government. We hope that they can pass it.

Mr. John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, is it possible for an English Member to catch your eye?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon Gentleman must wait and see.

Mr. Dempsey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As this debate is exclusively a debate on the Scottish economy, perhaps you will give preference to those Scottish Members who are anxious to take part in the debate?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: One of the unforutnate aspects of much of the debate so far is that it has been on a fairly acrimonious level. It is not that I do not agree entirely that the situation we face is very grave and difficult, and causes annoyance to a great many people. Unemployment is wholly unacceptable. In Scoltand it is at a serious level and it is understandable that people should feel strongly about it. Nevertheless, it is wrong to pretend that this situation can be wholly attributed to the previous Conservative Government, or to any one Government. It is inevitably composed of different factors, many of which have been mentioned already—for example, the effect of world-wide inflation and recession, the huge external borrowing requirement, the long legacy of non-investment, and so on.
However, it is insufficient for the Government, through the mouthpiece of the Secretary of State—whom I am sorry to see is not here, having taken 30 minutes out of a two-and-three quarter-hour debate, which is not reasonable for Front Bench speakers—simply to say that we are in this position because of the external situation. Undoubtedly the external situation has an effect, but it is by no means the only reason for Scotland, as a part of the United Kingdom having its present unemployment level and a decreasing degree of competitiveness not only in the steel industry, to which the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) referred, but also in many other industries.
It is not good enough for the two major parties—if I am to accept the definition that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith)

bestowed upon me as "a member of a minority party"—to disclaim responsibility when they were in the seat of power during the period which led up to our present circumstances—a situation in which Britain, Italy and Ireland are the poor men of the European Community, which we entered 15 years late. In face of that sort of record, it is hardly surprising that many Scots—it would appear from opinion polls, the majority of Scots—are beginning to question the Government's insistence that total control of the Scottish economy must remain in Whitehall and that any departure from it is absurd. Paragraph 131 of the White Paper, which deals with housing, says that rents must be controlled because general economic policy makes it necessary. I hardly think that changing the rents at Achiltibuie will bring down the British economy. This over-insistence upon central control is increasingly unpersuasive to many people, because of what has happened in the past. It was the Scottish National Party that called for this debate and it was right to do so, just as it is right to lament the economic record of the past.
However, we are compelled to ask whether the solutions that the Scottish National Party has to offer are more likely to succeed. It is not enough to demand independence for Scotland and then to say that the land will flow oil and honey.
There are two major problems. First, if we have large amounts of money—and the Secretary of State has already said that the whole basis of many of the poster campaigns is that we shall have large amounts of money and distribute them to various sectors of the community—the sudden distribution of that money in that way would have an immediate and possibly alarming effect on inflation in any economy. That fact has been overlooked.
Equally, and perhaps more importantly, if one has access to a large amount of investment, one cannot believe that it is possible to introduce new systems of economic and social management to improve industrial relations about which we are all concerned. That approach underestimates both the complexity of the problem and the tme scale necessary to resolve it. It will take some time for the problem to be absolutely resolved. It is foolish to suggest otherwise.
While nationalism and emotionalism may work in politics—they seem to have done so far—they do not necessarily work in international industry and commerce, which require logic and results. I do not understand the argument advanced by the Secretary of State for Scotland that regionalism and independence are incompatible. If that is so, how can a European regional policy operate when it involves an institution in which several independent States work together?
It is true that there has been a decline in the ratio of unemployment in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. If North Sea oil had not been discovered, one wonders what would be the unemployment rate today in Scotland. North Sea oil has nothing to do with any Government. It is a fortuitous fact. At the early stage of the discovery and extraction process in the North Sea there was a failure—partly by private industry and partly by the Government, who take upon themselves the responsibility of trying to run the economy—in forecasting the needs of the oil industry, with the result that pipes, tubes, valves and pumps had to be ordered from overseas.
There is urgent need to reach agreement with the oil companies about the manning of oil platforms—a need that will remain until the end of the century. That is the stable fact of British industry. Where can school leavers look for an industry that it likely to have a settled, safe, fairly confident and expanding future? There are not many such industries. The oil industry is one industry in which a large number of people will be employed, and if we are not careful the oil companies will be left to bring in overseas labour to man the platforms.
These opportunities exist. It is not enough to say that regional policy will sort them out. Regional policy has been in operation for 30 years. The Highlands and Islands Development Board has been in operation for a decade, and the areas in the Highlands that were difficult 10 years ago are still difficult. The areas of high unemployment then are still areas of high unemployment.
One must be led to the conclusion that while, indubitably, these policies have mitigated the worst effects, they have not supplied the answer which many of us

hoped and which Government spokesmen of the day suggested they might.
Time is against me. I have a great deal more that I should like to say, but I content myself by saying that all political parties should concentrate their energies and time on making the Government concentrate on creating retraining programmes for the new industries rather than dealing with the alleged successes of yesterday and the weaknesses of other political parties.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I, too, shall attempt to be brief. I was prepared to make an hour-long speech but no doubt I shall have to confine myself to a few minutes. I shall pick up one or two points that have already been made and some other matters that are relevant to the present situation.
I have never heard a debate on the Scottish economy initiated by any party so ineptly. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) made various comparisons and asked certain questions. For example, he asked why the Scandinavian countries enjoyed a higher standard of living than Scotland without making an analysis of the different Scandinavian conditions. He asked why Scotland exports more per head than England without referring to the weak balance of trade situation. He spoke about Scotland being self-sufficient in food, but, as any farmer will know, that is another distorted picture. Although I rather like the hon. Gentleman, I must say that his speech was unadulterated rubbish. I am sorry to have to say that. I regard him rather as a good Hebridean nationalist than as a member of the Scottish National Party. If the Leader of the SNP represents his party's economic thinking, heaven help Scotland if it ever comes to power.
I deal briefly with the hon. Gentleman's Catch 22-type comments. No doubt it was prepared for him by the SNP research department. The comment is made that if something is done for Scotland in the way of jobs, such action is being taken for crude political reasons. However, if nothing is done and jobs are not provided, Westminster is in the wrong because it is neglecting Scotland. I reject the nonsense of that kind of view. It


may be a very effective catch, but it is no more than a catch.
Along with that I deplore the 13-to14-year old level of behaviour that is displayed on the SNP Bench. It has been exhibited over the past year or more, but it was especially apparent during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have heard more intelligent comments from heckling 14year-olds. SNP Members must learn to think. Of course, they have failed to do that from the beginning.
It is difficult to determine the economic thinking of the SNP. It is difficult partly because SNP Members speak not with forked tongues but with triple tongues. They are all things to all men. On the one hand they say that we should conserve oil by limiting production to 50 million tons. However, they base their analysis of the use of these oil resources on 100 million tons. When we point out that if they grab all the oil for Scotland they cannot expect those who have helped them and have been willing to trade with them to continue to do so on the same terms, they say that they would negotiate the oil resources. However, that would further limit the amount of oil at their disposal. It may well be that they would reduce the 50 million tons to a negotiated level, but the resources which they put forward in their documents still stand at about 100 million tons.
The SNP is becoming a dishonest party,—deeply philosophically dishonest. It is regrettable that this is the best we can get, bearing in mind the great tradition of democratic intellect in Scotland. We even have an obscurity in the triple tongue because we are unable to find any economic analysis. At one stage we are told that it does not exist, that documents do not exist, but then we are told that the documents exist although the analysis will not be put into practice. I think that that was what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) said in an earlier debate. He said that he doubted whether the SNP's economic analysis would ever be put into practice. When, however, his party's documents filtered through into the public consciousness, it was he who said that he stood by the documents and would defend them. Apparently the economic spokesman of the SNP was

prepared to defend an economic policy that was not going to be put into practice. What worse kind of policy does the SNP intend to put into practice if it is not prepared to defend even this one?
I wish to take up two points that were made by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) said that we could not expect other areas of Strathclyde to help in the great problem of the Glasgow area. He said that this should be a British problem. He was right in that view, because while saying that it is a British problem, to be solved with the aid of British resources, one cannot at the same time maintain a separatist viewpoint. My hon. Friend also recognises—he is a man of independent views—that when defending his own constituency on the subject of the aviation industry, he must support a proposition involving a totally British solution. If we were to have that kind of honesty from SNP Members, that would at least be one step forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) stressed the importance to Scotland of the steel industry. He, too, takes up a separatist viewpoint. We already know that the Scottish steel requirement is less than 10 per cent. of the total United Kingdom production.

Mr. Robertson: The figure is 8 per cent.

Mr. Buchan: I said that the figure was less than 10 per cent. It is a matter of asking whether, when one takes away their share of oil resources, one can expect the steel workers in Scunthorpe to become unemployed in order to help the steel workers of Scotland.

Mr. Robertson: The use in Scotland in steel terms amounts to some 8 per cent., but before nationalisation the figure was 15 per cent. That percentage has been reduced only because of the rationalisation plans of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Buchan: This is a reflection of the basic problem of the Scottish economy and relates to the major heavy industries running down in the past. We know that in the decade 1961 to 1971 the heavy engineering, steel and shipbuilding industries lost 72,000 workers through natural reasons rather than as a result of


deliberate Government policies. In that same period, with the aid of massive public expenditure, we managed to pull into the motor vehicle industry 19,000 jobs. At the same time we were running down heavy industry in a ratio of four to one to new industries. This is a basic problem and it is subject to the rapid change of events.
The Scottish National Party has suggested in one of these documents that the SNP wants to see Scotland developing as a Switzerland rather than as a Detroit. That kind of argument appears to envisage a Scottish economy based on the production of a kind of cuckoo-clock economy in which there is a limited use for steel. One cannot on the one hand fight for an expanded steel industry and at the same time try to develop an economy based on that kind of industry. The SNP must face up to facts.
I should like to take up one or two arguments on the question of devolution. It has been said that the Labour Party has broken its manifesto pledges on devolution in respect of the economy. I resigned from the Government because I disagreed with their policies; I am an expert on broken pledges. I do not know of any pledge in the manifesto or the White Pager in this connection which has been broken. I ask the Scottish Labour Party Members to point to the truth in their statement that the Government have broken their pledge. If they cannot do so, I ask them to withdraw their statement now. The answer is silence. I hope my hon. Friends will not associate themselves with the myth-making that has been practised by the Scottish National Party. It is not true to say that the manifesto pledge concerning the devolution of the economy has been broken by word or spirit.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is much cuter than I. He knows that if he says something in his constituency he will be held accountable for it. During the election campaign the official spokesman of the Labour Party in Scotland made pledges on television and radio. One of the official spokesmen for the Labour Party in Scotland was my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars).

Mr. Buchan: That is right. The only pledge which could be said to have been

broken was given by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars).

Mr. Robertson: That is not true.

Mr. Buchan: I do not know—

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend knows it is not true.

Mr. Buchan: I ask the simple question—

Mr. Robertson: My getting an answer.

Mr. Buchan: The answer which I was not given was to the question what pledge was broken in the manifesto.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is playing with words. Anyway, he calls it a bit of paper.

Mr. Buchan: That is totally untrue. The pledges were not broken, as has been amply demonstrated. However, it could be said that they did not go far enough or too far. It could be said that the manifesto was bad or wrong. However, it cannot be said that pledges were broken.
I turn to the argument that more devolution is better. There comes a point at which more economic devolution turns upon itself. That point comes when we break away any Scottish influence or control over the United Kingdom economy. A good example is Chrysler. We could not have saved Chrysler in Scotland if we had not retained control over aspects of the total United Kingdom economy. We would lose 2,000 defence jobs in Bishopton tomorrow if we lost control over the United Kingdom economy. The Scottish National Party must face this situation.
I have no time, because of the length of necessary interventions about the truth, to develop what I believe is the basic malaise in the Scottish economy, a problem which is not divorced from the English and Welsh economies. We must start now on industrial reflation and investment. We must give guidelines to the banks regarding loans and the right guidelines for the best multiplier spin-off effects. We must have import controls for both Scotland and England. We must help to expose the myths and the lies which we hear so often from the Scottish National Party.

9.4 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: In view of the time I shall make only a few comments, in the hope that someone else will have an opportunity to speak. My first point concerns the importance of the regional concept to Scotland. My second point concerns the myth of the exaggerated value of oil to Scotland.
Against the background of heavy industry which has had to be translated to more modern industry the Chrysler works were brought into Scotland as part of a regional policy. It may be that they are in severe trouble today but most hon. Members who are present tonight have no idea of the circumstances that existed in that part of Scotland at the time. The decision was made by the then Conservative Secretary of State. It was an exceedingly difficult political decision. I believed it to be right then and I believe it to be right now.
Let no one in this House, let alone this new and temporary party that is taking part in the debate, make any mistake; it is essential to operate a regional policy if we are to maintain the improvement in the economy which we have seen in recent years.
My second point concerns oil. In the recent difficulties regarding Chrysler, there has been more totally irresponsible reference to what oil and the finance flowing from it can do for Scotland than I could have thought possible. There are extremely difficult problems facing Chrysler today. Many of my hon. Friends deeply regret, as I do, the fact that the vast input of public money should still not be accepted as the last chance to manufacture motor cars in Scotland. The vast proportion of the work force wish this industry to continue and flourish. I hope that all workers in the Chrysler Corporation at Linwood and throughout Scotland—and the few ancillary undertakings—recognise that it is upon their performance alone that this industry will continue.

Mr. Buchan: And management.

Miss Harvie Anderson: And management. I said "the work force". Curiously enough, when I use that phrase I include management, unions and the men on the shop floor. To tell the work force that it does not matter what happens because the proceeds from oil will main?

tain employment in the car industry is absolute nonsense. The work force knows that is so. Those who use that argument so irresponsibly appear to be totally unaware of the investment requirement of an industry of this magnitude.
Let us be under no illusion. We in Scotland must maintain regional policy, and it can be sustained only through a United Kingdom effort. It is not possible for us to go it alone on revenue from oil.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: want to take up immediately the point made by the right hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) about regional policy. Indeed, I take it a little further. We want not only a United Kingdom but a European regional policy. Indeed, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) and I are members of a European Committee that is seeking to work out a European regional policy.
A few days ago I was approached by representatives of the Glasgow Herald, which is planning a £10 million extension. They asked me to contact Mr. George Thomson to see whether they could get aid from Europe. This evening I have put into the hands of the Lobby correspondent of the Glasgow Herald three letters from Mr. George Thomson indicating that aid might be obtained from Europe for extending the activities of the Glasgow Herald in Glasgow. This is the context in which we should see both the Scottish and the British economy.
We should get away from the parochial rubbish to which we were subjected at the beginning of the debate. We heard references to Scotland being self sufficient in food—like bananas, I suppose, and coffee and cocoa. I suppose we could produce it all if we wished to do so. One can produce everything at a price. But to use that kind of nonsensical argument is to insult the intelligence of the Scottish people.
Scotland is suffering from what the United Kingdom is suffering from—a world recession, created principally by the determination of the Third World to get fair returns for its natural resources, especially oil. The quadrupling of oil prices and increases in the prices of raw materials on which the British economy depends have thrown


us out of joint. No matter what machinery of government is evolved in Edinburgh, or Cardiff, or anywhere else, there will continue to be a relentless redistribution of the world's wealth.
An international conference is now taking place on this theme. The Third World, on which industrialised nations have been so dependent for their raw materials and energy over the last 100 years, is determined to ensure that the days of exploitation are over. We have to see that Third World countries get their fair share, and that means that our standard of living cannot go up as fast as we have been accustomed to, if at all. If it is to go up, we must make ourselves more efficient. Every worker in every factory and industry must put his shoulder to the wheel, whether he is a Scot, an Irishman, or a German—because the Europeans have similar problems. They have unemployment and inflation. When SNP Members talk about the Norwegians, they should remember that boatloads of Norwegians come to Newcastle and Norwich every weekend to buy our cheap goods.
Even if oil revenue were flowing for Scotland tomorrow, the country would still have the problems that we face today. Inflation is a world problem, and we are doing as well as, if not better than, many of our competitors. There is irrefutable evidence that we are slowing down the rate of inflation which had been unacceptably and devastatingly high.
It is easy to berate the Government about the level of unemployment and say what a social and economic outrage it is, but we should remember that there are more than 5 million people unemployed in the EEC. To pretend that by some manipulation of the machinery of government or by setting up an institution in Scotland, whether a Parliament or an Assembly, we shall automatically or dramatically change the situation is simply to deceive people.
I do not believe that any responsible body in Scotland or anywhere else believes that these problems can be solved by cutting the United Kingdom into little bits and pieces. Over the past few weeks I have had interesting talks with the CBI

in Scotland and with employers in Glenrothes, and with trade unions and Chambers of Commerce. None of them wants the kind of separation that the SNP stands for. They know that it is an integrated economy which simply cannot be split asunder.
I had an interesting experience a month or two ago at a meeting with the Scottish NFU. I now have the most enthusiastic supporters in the NFU in Central Fife, and I would not miss that meeting with the farmers for anything. I asked them what they thought about devolution and they said, "God forbid!" So the Scottish CBI, the Scottish TUC, the Scottish chambers of commerce and the Scottish NFU, all of them responsible bodies, all look at the national interest and all say that we need to stay together. And, by God, we do, more than ever.
We do ourselves an injustice by pretending that everything is black. The latest figures in the Department of Employment Gazette for January 1976 show the percentage rates of unemployment for the development areas and the special development areas. There are 14 of them throughout the United Kingdom. The table shows that Scotland has come out second best. Worst off is the North-West Wales special development area with an unemployment rate of 12·2 per cent. That was exactly twice the figure for the Scottish development area. The south-west of England development area has unemployment running at 10·4 per cent. Girvan has 9·3 per cent. and Merseyside 9·9 per cent. Those figures show that Scotland has nothing to be ashamed of.
I get the quarterly figures for Glenrothes in my constituency. The new towns have been the most successful social and economic experiment in Britain since the last war. Glenrothes is a glaring example of what can be done through regional policies applied on a United Kingdom basis. The National Coal Board spent £20 million at Glenrothes but then found that because of the geology it could not get one ton of coal out. People described it as a disaster area, but in retrospect it was the best thing that could have happened.
We have a greater diversifiction of industry there than almost anywhere in Scotland. As a result of the successive


regional policies of United Kingdom Governments, there is a greater concentration of electronics industries in Fife than anywhere else in the world apart from California. Hardly anyone in this House knows that.
I received a letter from Brigadier Doyle of the Glenrothes Development Corporation which said:
t am enclosing herewith the quarterly return for the end of September. The interesting thing about this is that despite the fact that some 214 people have been laid off from GEC our own loss over the quarter has only been 43. I think this is in line with the hope I expressed to you when you were up here last as I expected some of the other firms to expand and take up the slack. I think to have only lost 43 at this particular time is a good omen.
And so it is. Nobody will deny the seriousness of the unemployment problem. Equally, I hope that no one will try to deceive the Scottish people into thinking that there is an easy way out. There is not. There is neither an easy way out nor a short way out in solving these problems.
We can talk about oil as we like. The Arabs will decide the value of that oil. Neither the Scots not the British Government in London will decide it. Who knows? We have tried to keep a floor price in Europe designed to protect our oil from the deprivations that can be imposed on us from outside by the Arabs. No mucking about with the machinery of government can deny that fact.
I have done my duty. I shall now sit down.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: The very fact that we are talking about the Scottish economy is in itself an advantage. A few years ago in Scotland the argument raged as to whether such a thing actually existed. The fact that we all agree now—apart from the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve)—that a thing called the Scottish economy exists is a major step forward. It is a result of the excellent work done by the Scottish Council's research institute and the SNP and its research department.
I think that the existence of the United Kingdom economy, or a United Kingdom-managed economy, is largely a myth. The United Kingdom economy has been

run as though the United Kingdom consisted of the area between Brighton and Birmingham and all other areas were categorised as misfits which needed to receive only grudging attention.
The Daily Mail said a month or two ago that the one thing that united the Conservative and Labour Parties in this House was the sight of an SNP Member on his or her feet. That is what it has been like tonight. The Conservatives have been quoting from a document which serves to prove the SNP case. It is a pity that the rules of the House suggest that the major Opposition party cannot sit on the Government Benches. That would have been the best place for Conservatives to sit tonight.

Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman is on the Tory Benches.

Mr. Crawford: There are two types of Unionists. There are those who are serious in their belief that the Scottish economy benefits from the fact that it is run from London and that it is under the thumb of the Treasury. They are woefully naive economically. Perhaps the tragic speech—I use the word "tragic "advisedly—of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) exemplifies the tristesse of the Scottish economy today. Here is a man happy with the British connection but whose pleas fall on deaf ears, and his dreams for his constituency turn to nightmares.

Mr. Lambie: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that the only reason why there is not prosperity in my area is that at the public inquiry on the developments at Hunterston the SNP gave evidence against the developments taking place.

Mr. Crawford: I was taking up the hon. Gentleman's point about a motorway from Irvine and the fact that he was not getting his request granted by the Secretary of State. I shall come to Hunterston shortly.
There are others in the House who pay lip service to the supposed benefits under the United Kingdom unitary economy. That is fair enough, but they should be designated as Britons and not Scots, because if they are doing down the Scottish economy in that way they do not deserve the name "Scots" and they are Britons and should be proud to be British for that reason. [Interruption.]


It is important to get back to the initial meaning of the word "economy".

Mr. William Hamilton: Racialist.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that terms of abuse will not be thrown around the Chamber.

Mr. Crawford: I am not a racialist, Mr. Speaker. I think you are well aware of that.

Mr. Lambie: Just a Tory.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that no one will be called a racialist in this Chamber. Whatever anyone else has ruled, I consider it to be an unparliamentary expression.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. From a sedentary position I said "That was a racialist statement". I did not call the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) a racialist.

Mr. Speaker: That is what in Wales we would call a second cousin.

Mr. Crawford: It is important to get back to the root of the word "economy", which comes from the Greek word for housekeeping—oikonomia—the business of feeding, clothing and heating ourselves. If we can feed, clothe and heat ourselves, our economy will be basically in balance. To have sufficient meat is more important than being able to understand the mysteries of M1 and M3. In spite of what hon. Gentlemen on the Government and Conservative Party Benches have said, we can feed ourselves. This is confirmed by the Edinburgh Junior Chamber of Commerce—hardly a mouthpiece of the Scottish National Party. It says that England has too large a population and has lost the cheap markets of empire—
Lo, all thy pomp of yesterday
Is one with Nineveh and Tyre"—
but the Scottish economy is basically in balance, and it was on an essentially balanced economy that the Scottish economy developed.

Mr. Ian Sproat: How can the hon. Member say that the Scottish economy is in balance when the Paymaster-General told us only two weeks ago that the deficit produced was roughly 10 per cent. of the GDP and that this means there was a deficit of £537 million?

Mr. Crawford: The Paymaster-General did not take into account the expenditure on English interests in Scotland, or agricultural subsidies, or higher social security benefits—of which we are not proud—or several other things. If the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) is on the side of the Paymaster-General, so be it, but Scotland had what was an essentially balance economy. It was on an essentially balanced economy that Scotland developed, but Scottish Labour did not, hence the ILP and Home Rule. Today's Labour Members in Scotland are a poor shadow of the Clydeside Home Rulers.
There may have been executive devolution both before and since then, and we have had the creation of the office of Secretary of State, and St. Andrew's House, as well as the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. But these have always been under the thumb of the Treasury. In later years the executive devolution was more than counterbalanced by the centralisation of nationalised and multinational industry.
The Report of the Scottish Council in 1969, on centralisation, is well known. The sad fact is that the Scottish Council has recognised that the situation has worsened since then. Increasingly, the effective decisions about investment in Scotland are made in London.
Private investment may not commend itself too much to Government Members, but at least Scotland was built up by Scottish enterprise. Today for Scottish enterprise we have substituted London bureaucracy and over-costing. Even today, Smiths Industries are bidding for McLellans of Glasgow, and the offer has been accepted.
It would be much better to have a Scottish oil corporation, a Scottish steel corporation, a Scottish electronics advisory authority, Scottish control over British Rail in Scotland, and a Scottish coal board. Then these nationalised industries would be accountable to the people of Scotland, who could do something about them.
The figure for unemployment in Norway is 1·3 per cent., and in Sweden it is F6 per cent. The Conservative Benches may not be interested, but we in Scotland are. The figure for Finland is 2·1 per cent., and for Austria, 2 per cent., but for Scotland it is 7 per cent.
What kind of Government is it that is creating in Scotland a society for school leavers who cannot get an apprenticeship for two years—a society in which young men of ability and heart are having to emigrate? If this is regional policy, little can be said for it. No self-governing Scotland could do as badly as that.
I ask the people of Scotland whether they are happy with 7 per cent. unemployment or with short-term redundancy payments. They would, I am sure, rather have jobs that will give meaning to their lives. I am sure that they do not want an unemployment level of 7 per cent.
The Secretary of State for Scotland says that Scotland cannot be isolated from a world recession. His complacency, in the light of the Scandinavian, Austrian and Swiss figures, is shocking. Other hon. Members have said that this Government are using unemployment as a weapon against inflation. Shame on them, if that is the case. Shame on the party which, in 1974, said "Back to work with Labour."
If we are to be castigated for comparing Scotland with the English regions, we would say that both Scotland and England are nations and that we want to be compared with other nations. There are regions in Scotland with far worse unemployment than any region in England. I would ask the business community, the entrepreneurs, the company directors, the CBI and the chambers of commerce in Scotland whether they would rather have a bank rate of 10 per cent. or more or the rates prevailing in Europe, which are roughly half that. Do they want to pay more for the money they need for investment and employment? If they do, their shareholders and employees will want to know about it.

Dr. M. S. Miller: What is the solution?

Mr. Crawford: I am coming to the solutions—

Dr. Miller: Do not just keep rehearsing the problems.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions from a sedentary position spoil a debate.

Mr. Crawford: I realise that the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) must be rather impatient these days.

Mr. Donald Stewart: His time is coming.

Mr. Crawford: The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that the SNP has claimed that a self-governing Scotland would have a strong Scottish pound. Would any business man rather have a health currency or a weak one? Is a healthy pound desirable or not?
I come now to the main point. In the debate on devolution my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) said that the fault with the Scottish economy was that it was the catspaw of the central demand management of the United Kingdom economy. If central demand management works at all—which is doubtful—it does so only where a country's geographical structural, commercial and industrial antennae are highly geared and industrial decision-making is properly decentralised. It works less badly in smaller economies than in large.
Whenever England caught an economic cold, Scotland got pneumonia. Scotland was so beat in any London-led recession that even when London got out of it, artificially or otherwise, Scotland had not pulled out of it by the time the next one came. It is not much better now. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) referred to the CBI survey in January. I refer him to its survey in January 1971, when his party was in power.
There has been too much talking about the Scottish economy, too many working parties, feasibility studies, study groups and cliches. On the committees of the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the Scottish Development Agency we see the same tired old faces.
We in the SNP are sick, tired and fed-up with hearing the Scottish TUC, the Scottish Labour Party and the CBI saying, whenever the unemployment figures come out "Something has to he done. Let us go to London and see the Prime Minister." Let us stop acting like Uriah Heep. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) preened himself on the fact that representatives of the Glasgow Herald had approached him and asked whether they could raise £10 million in Europe. Should they not do it for themselves? Can we in Scotland not stand on our own feet for a change?
The people should see that the only way to get something done is to do it themselves. We have the resources and the expertise and the labour in Scotland.
So what is to do? I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) about steel. He is more knowledgeable about that than I am. I admired his speech. He may or may not agree that one of the ways to achieve what he wants is to establish a Scottish steel corporation. British Rail, another nationalised industry, should become the agent of the Scottish Assembly, just as in the case of trunk roads the regions are the agents of the Secretary of State. There should be no more rail cuts. The Perth-Inverness line should be double-tracked. There should be regional rapid transit systems in Tayside, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. The Glasgow-Ayr route should be electrified.
There is no problem in Scottish coal. As soon as the oil price goes up, as it assuredly will, coal will become competitive again. Scotland has no shortage of coal reserves at Airth and under the Forth.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West said that Scotland would not have an electronics industry but for the fact that we were part of the United Kingdom economy. That industry came to Scotland in spite of, not because of, the United Kingdom connection. It came because of the Scottish Council and the Ferranti electronics scheme in the late 1940s and early 1950s. We need to develop in Scotland an electronics components industry, possibly under a Scottish electronics advisory authority.
I say to the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) that we need more oversight of takeovers and partial takeovers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Honeywell in his constituency has had its computer interests taken over by G. E. Bull, and there could be redundancies as a result of that.

Mr. James Hamilton: I do not think it right that a statement should be made by someone who does not know the first thing about the situation in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman has made a statement for which he will be sorry, and he will be required to withdraw it because it is untrue.

Mr. Crawford: My reply to the hon. Gentleman is "Just wait and see". I am as sad about the situation as he is.
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland say in his opening remarks that the headquarters of the Scottish Development Agency would be in Scotland. I am delighted to hear that the SDA will not be impaired by lack of finance, and I hope that the Minister of State will be able to endorse that and say categorically that the SDA will have £300 million per annum.
We think that the SDA should have its operations decentralised throughout Scotland and internationalised throughout the world. We take up the point made by the lion. Member for North Angus and Mearns that there should be an arm of the SDA that would act as a venture capital fund. In that way we shall get new jobs and new industries under our control in Scotland.
Those are brief outlines of the vigorous, vibrant, mixed, socially aware and socially accountable economy which a self-governing Scotland will enjoy, and before them the murky, dim Scottish economy of today pales into insignificance. If Scotland's growth rate had shown a 1 per cent. improvement per annum more than it did over the past 30 years' our gross domestic product would have been up by about 33 per cent. Per capita it would mean that the gross domestic product in Scotland, instead of today's £1,400, would be approaching about £2,000. We could not have made a bigger mess of our own economy than London has made of it for us.
To London we say "Let us do our own thing". Let us, as John F. Kennedy said in his inaugural speech on the United States economy. [Interruption.] I am surprised that lion. Gentlemen are laughing at the name of John F. Kennedy. Let us in Scotland, as he said, be inspired by the lift of a rising dream. To the Government we in the SNP say "Resign. You have been abject failures, raising unemployment and depressing investment levels in Scotland to an unprecedented degree. Do the honourable thing, resign, and let the SNP put its economic plans to the judgment of the people of Scotland. Resign and let us have a General Election on the issue of the Scottish economy."

9.43 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Milian): I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) in opening the debate was hardly equal to the occasion. He seemed to be reading somebody else's script. The trouble with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) was that he was reading his own script.
I start from the point that unemployment in Scotland is far too high. It is a matter of the most serious concern. The latest figures are inflated by the inclusion, on a temporary basis as it happens, of students and a large number of school leavers, but even taking account of that we have very serious unemployment and I do not think it is any use anyone on the Government Bench pretending that that is not the case.
It is true, and it has to be said, that we are facing a deep world-wide recession, and it is not possible—I think the House has to accept this—for the United Kingdom economy to be completely isolated from that.
It happens that the Scottish record relative to the United Kingdom has been very good over the last 18 months or so. It is not true that there are some magical formulas, apparently the discovery of small countries in other parts of the world, which can isolate us from the present world recession, although that has been argued by the SNP spokesmen. The current Barclays Bank economic reports for a number of small countries have the following things to say about the present position:
Denmark:
depressed level of activity … high unemployment.
Finland:
stagnating output … large foreign trade deficit … high rate of inflation.
Eire:
rapid inflation … rising unemployment … heavy trade deficit.
Netherlands:
general slowdown in activity … rather high unemployment.
Norway:
recessionary trends caused by fall in foreign demand … economic activity at a fairly low level … unemployment has risen significantly … large current account deficit.

Switzerland:
weakening of demand … deterioration in balance of payments …
I could go on to give a number of other examples.
The argument that if we created a separate Scottish economy we should solve our economic problems by that step alone is an economic absurdity. It pays no regard to the history of the Scottish economy. It also ignores the serious problems that all countries are facing today. That includes small independent countries as much as the United Kingdom. We shall not find a solution to the Scottish problem except in the context of United Kingdom reflation. My hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the point, and I repeat, that no one would be happier than this Government if we were able to reflate. But we have serious economic problems, including the balance of payments and inflation, which must be solved before we can have the expansion which is the ultimate answer.
We have taken a number of measures to deal with the difficulties of unemployment. My right hon. Friend has mentioned some of them—the temporary employment subsidy, the recruitment subsidy, the job creation schemes and aid to the construction industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that he will be announcing further measures soon, and I understand that the announcement will be towards the end of next week.
The answer to our difficulties in Scotland, as well as the United Kingdom, must be to achieve a strong economic position which will enable the Government to take reflationary measures. It is true that the Scottish unemployment position has been strong compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Relatively we have suffered less than other parts so that the unemployment relative between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, at 120, is the lowest it has ever been. We should take a certain amount of satisfaction from that. It is also true that over the years the gap between Scottish wages and United Kingdom wages has narrowed and has now virtually disappeared.
Why have we achieved these results? First, a good deal of the credit must go


to regional policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the point—this was not apparently wholly understood by some hon. Members—that we cannot have a regional policy except on a United Kingdom basis. Of course we can give incentives on a fragmented basis, but we cannot get the direction of industry, which comes from the negative control of investment certificates and the rest, without a United Kingdom policy on these matters. Anyone who has studied the post-war years and looked at the figures—my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave some interesting figures in a Written Answer today—will realise that without the negative powers as well as the positive incentives we would not have been able to achieve the improvements in the relative economic position of Scotland that we have achieved since the end of the war.
Between 1960 and 1971, regional policy in Scotland generated between 70,000 to 80,000 new jobs.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that during the period even of this Government London and Midland Members of Parliament have (made tremendous representations and complained bitterly that regional policy has sent industry to Scotland, the North of England, the North-West and so on. The truth is that we kept to our policy because we thought it was right.

Mr. Milian: Yes, and we should pay tribute to the London Members of this House who over the years have voted for regional policies which have been, in a sense, detrimental to their areas.
At present the relative disparities between different parts of Scotland are much greater—in any of the economic indicators that we care to choose—than the disparities between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Although Scottish Members have always been complacent and enthusiastic about the proposition that industry should be diverted from England and that there should be special assistance to direct economic activity from England to Scotland, I find very little enthusiasm among Scottish Members for the idea that priority should be given to particular parts of Scotland. Yet it happens to be

the case that priority now has to be given to particular parts of Scotland. That is why, for example, the Government have said that the Scottish Development Agency must give priority to West-Central Scotland. I hope that that will be widely accepted in Scotland.
The second reason why we are in a relatively better employment position in Scotland today than in the past is the impact of North Sea oil. The number of jobs in Scotland, taking account of the multiplier effect, that have been generated both directly and indirectly as a result of North Sea oil is between 50,000 and 55,000. A good number of them have been a result of deliberate Government policy and the stimulus and encouragement through for example, the Offshore Supplies Office.
Although North Sea oil is the cornerstone of the political appeal of the Scottish National Party, it is ironic that its policy of reducing the exploitation of North Sea oil would automatically wipe out at a stroke a large number of the 55,000 jobs. If the rate of oil exploitation was slowed down to, say 50 per cent., which is the sort of figure we hear mentioned, there would be more than a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of jobs. I reckon that we would lose at least 30,000 North Sea oil jobs in Scotland if we adopted SNP policy.
Despite the relative improvement in unemployment, we still have formidable industrial problems in Scotland. But there is no major industrial problem in Scotland that can be solved solely in a Scottish context. That just cannot be done. That is not the point of view only of the Government. It is a point of view that is accepted by industry and the trade unions in Scotland. I meet representatives of the trade unions frequently to discuss industrial problems.
The description of what has happened in the steel industry by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Robertson) was a grotesque account and quite unrealistic. There are plans for significant expansion of the industry in Scotland—which rest on Hunterston—and they would not make any sense and would not be possible except in the United Kingdom context. The adoption of a separatist policy for the Scottish steel industry would give us the run-down of


the old plants—that is inevitable—but would not give us the build-up of Hunterston.
I take another recent industrial problem—Chrysler. It was impossible to solve the Chrysler problem through a Scottish solution alone. Members of the SNP do not understand that proposition, but the workers in the Linwood plant understand it very well. It was possible to solve the Chrysler problem only in a United Kingdom context.
To say, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, that Scotland could have a separate coal industry of great prosperity is to fly in the face of the facts. The Scottish coal industry has been one of the least financially prosperous areas of the National Coal Board for a long time. That is an unfortunate fact that would not go away because there was a separate Government. The financial and economic position is not magically transformed by a separate Government. The same is true of British Rail and of the Post Office. I understand that only yesterday Members of the SNP voted in favour of fragmenting the Post Office when they supported a Ten-Minute Bill.
With all these problems we have, of course, been concerned about the immediate difficulties. The Government cannot simply be concerned with long-term planning and ignore the immediate position. We have also had very much in mind the long-term needs of the Scottish economy. That is especially so in the case of the steel industry and is illustrated by the way in which we have developed our selective assistance policy generally. It is also illustrated by our policy of dispersing Civil Service jobs from London, confirmation of a major dispersal having been announced this week. That again makes sense only in the United Kingdom context and would be lost to a separate Scotland.
The need for long-term policies applies also to the Scottish Development Agency.

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire may bluster as much as he likes, but in Committee on the Scottish Development Agency Bill he voted against industrial powers being given to the SDA. I think that he was subsequently rebuked by his party for doing that. The hon. Gentleman put forward several slightly absurd propositions in Committee, some of which I gather he repeated this evening. Nothing that he said about the SDA, or about anything else, gives the slightest indication that the SNP either understands or has any solution to offer of Scotland's long-term economic problems.

Scotland's economic problems cannot be solved simply by North Sea oil. We repudiate the suggestion that the benefits of North Sea oil should go to Scotland. alone. Incidentally, that suggestion would cut out the Welsh, of which I hope Plaid Cymru has taken due account. Apart from the vulnerability of North Sea oil to price fluctuations, there would be major industrial problems. No one is suggesting that North Sea oil is other than a major resource which will be of great benefit to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Mr. Gordon Wilson rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put, but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. Milian: I was about to say that the policy of the Scottish National Party on North Sea oil is basically the politics of resentment, and that is a very dangerous basis on which to govern Scotland or any other country.
Question put,
That the salary of the Secretary of State for Scotland should be reduced by the sum of £1,000:—

The House divided: Ayes, 213, Noes 235.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Alison, Michael
Benyon, W.
Braine, Sir Bernard


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Berry, Hon Anthony
Brittan, Leon


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, John
Brotherton, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Biggs-Davison, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Blaker, Peter
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Kenneth
Boscawen, Hon Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Banks, Robert
Bottomley, Peter
Budgen, Nick


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Burden, F. A.


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)




Carlisle, Mark
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Channon, Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Michael
Reid, George


Clegg, Walter
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cockcroft, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cope, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Cormack, Patrick
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ridsdale, Julian


Corrie, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Crawford, Douglas
Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
Lamont, Norman
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, F. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Lawson, Nigel
Sainsbury, Tim


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Le Merchant, Spencer
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Drayson, Burnaby
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Lloyd, Ian
Shepherd, Colin


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacCormick, lain
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fairgrieve, Russell
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil
Spence, John


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Stanley, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Madel, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fox, Marcus
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Freud, Clement
Marten, Neil
Stokes, John


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maude, Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Mawby, Ray
Tebbit, Norman


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mayhew, Patrick
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter
Thompson, George


Goodhew, Victor
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Goodlad, Alastair
Moate, Roger
Trotter Neville


Gorst, John
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Morgan, Geraint
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Viggers, Peter


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wakeham, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Grist, Ian
Neave, Airey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Grylis, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Wall, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Neubert, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Newton, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nott, John
Watt, Hamish


Hannam, John
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wells, John


Hawkins, Paul
Page, John (Harrow West)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Wigley, Dafydd


Heseltine, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Hicks, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Higgins, Terence L.
Penhaligon, David
Younger, Hon George


Holland, Philip
Percival, Ian



Hordern, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howell, David (Guildford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Mr. Andrew Welsh and


Hunt, John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Mr. Douglas Henderson.


Hutchison, Michael Clark






NOES


Abse, Leo
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cartwright, John


Allaun, Frank
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara.


Anderson, Donald
Bradford, Rev Robert
Clemitson, Ivor


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cohen, Stanley


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Coleman, Donald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen


Atkinson, Norman
Buchan, Norman
Concannon, J. D.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Buchanan, Richard
Conlan, Bernard


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Bean, R. E.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. Cardiff SE)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Catlaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Bidwell, Sydney
Campbell, Ian
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Bishop, E. S.
Canavan, Dennis
Crawshaw, Richard


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Nell
Cronin, John


Boardman. H.
Carter, Ray
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Cryer, Bob




Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Kinnock, Neil
Rooker, J. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Lambie, David
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lamborn, Harry
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Denzil (Lanelli)
Lamond, James
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lipton, Marcus
Selby, Harry


Delargy, Hugh
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Luard, Evan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand, J. D.
McCartney, Hugh
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McElhone, Frank
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor
Silverman, Julius


Edge, Geoff
Mackintosh, John P.
Skinner, Dennis


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Maclennan, Robert
Small, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ennals, David
McNamara, Kevin
Snape, Peter


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Magee, Bryan
Spriggs, Leslie


Flannery, Martin
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stallard, A. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Stoddart, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Ford, Ben
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stott, Roger


Forrester, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Strang, Gavin


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Swain, Thomas


George, Bruce
Mendelson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Golding, John
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gould, Bryan
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tierney, Sydney


Gourlay, Harry
Molloy, William
Tinn, James


Graham, Ted
Moonman, Eric
Tomney, Frank


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Torney, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Tuck, Raphael


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Newens, Stanley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric
Ward, Michael


Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Watkins, David


Horam, John
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Watkinson, John


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Padley, Walter
White, James (Pollok)


Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Park, George
Whitlock, William


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Perry, Ernest
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Phipps, Dr Colin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Woof, Robert


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Radice, Giles
Young, David (Bolton E)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Richardson, Miss Jo



Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Kerr, Russell
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton)



Question accordingly negatived.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

10.15 p.m.

Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges) Amendment Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1945), dated 27th November 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the general convenience of the House to take at the same time the following motions:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Remission of Charges) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1946), dated 27th November 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th December, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1987), dated 1st December 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Remission of Charges) (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1988), dated 1st December 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be annulled.

Dr. Vaughan: I do not intend to go into great detail on these Regulations. We have put down the Prayer to obtain information from the Minister regarding the Government's attitude towards charges generally in the National Health Service. It is not clear from the Government's history and the speeches of Labour Members, including Ministers, what attitude they have towards charges in this area. There is an extraordinary contradiction between what they say and do. It is a matter not of practising what is preached but of preaching one thing and then, in Government, practising something quite different. I saw a sign recently which read "'Do not adjust your mind. There is a fault in reality." That seems to be the message of the Labour Party.
Even on a narrow subject like charges for health care, the Labour Government do not seem able to say and then do

the same thing. In 1949 a Labour Government passed the Act allowing charges to be made. In 1951 a Labour Government imposed charges for the first time for dentures and spectacles. At the 1964 General Election the Labour Party, it seems, had no difficulty in saying "Our aim is to provide as rapidly as possible a completely free health service." It depends what is meant by "as rapidly as possible". The reality was quite different from what the Labour Party had been saying.
When Labour left office in 1970, every charge had not only been abolished but was far higher—not a little higher—than in 1964 when Labour took over. The prescription charge was up by 25 per cent., dental treatment was up by 50 per cent. and dentures and spectacles were up by 25 per cent. Labour did exactly the opposite of what it said it would do.
Not surprisingly, as soon as the Labour Government were out of office, out came the pledges again. In 1973 the Labour Party said that it would phase out all National Health Service charges. In February 1974 we heard it again. It was not "phase out" then, but "abolish", suggesting by the use of that word some greater decision and action. A month after the election the Secretary of State, who was here a few moments ago, was in full cry saying "Our goal is a free health service."
In October 1974 the Labour Party manifesto, not in any way disturbed by past actions, stated that a Labour Government would strengthen the
provision for dental care"—
whatever that means—
by freezing the level of dental charges for patients".
Then comes the inevitable catch-phrase—to
continue the progressive elimination of prescription charges".
It was a case of shouting "Onward" while walking backwards. Now we have exactly the opposite of what they said they would do. They are putting up charges yet again.
The Minister should admit that a completely free service is not only undesirable but unrealistic and not in accord with any sensible system of priorities for the National Health Service.
He knows the view of myself and many of my colleagues that some sort of charging system is necessary from the demand point of view and in terms of financial common sense. Will the Minister confirm that the Labour Party's policy of abolishing all charges is an utter and total nonsense and explain why the Labour Party manifesto is Holy Writ when it comes to pay-beds but can be totally ignored on dental and spectacle charges?
What was meant when the official Press hand-out of 20th November described these charges as a "New, improved system of dental and optical charges"? How, on Labour's past policies and statements, can getting an extra £16 million from people be described as an improvement? Perhaps, like Humpty Dumpty, words mean anything the Minister wants them to mean. The improved system is to make patients pay the full cost of dental treatment up to a maximum of £3·50 or, for dentures, £12.
What is the effect of this likely to be on patients? That is what concerns us. The Government are right to put up charges a little. These Regulations are probably right, but will they not mean that people who need a comparatively small amount of treatment—say, one or two fillings—will have to pay more than before and will have a disincentive to go to the dentist? Will these charges be a disincentive to people having regular small services from dentists? The argument is that the deterrent effect for those having a good deal of treatment will be reduced, but the Minister should consider the effect on people having a small amount of treatment. They will have to pay more.
I know that some of the spectacle charges do not apply to children, but will the dental charges discourage children from the joy of attending the dentist? We should bear in mind the British Dental Association's statement that dental decay often occurs in early childhood and the survey by Winter and others in 1971 that 25 per cent. of children between the ages of one and four have at least one decayed tooth needing treatment.
There may also be disincentives for people getting help with spectacles. The main effect of these charges is that the majority of patients who require rela?

tively simple lenses will have to pay £2 or £3 more than previously.
I hope that the Minister will tell us his estimate, after taking account of these increased charges, of the total revenue to the NHS from charges in a full year. He may not wish to tell me, but I want to know how this figure is expected to be made up between prescriptions and dental and spectacle charges. I estimate the total for a full year to be about £150 million, but I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that figure.
On what will the extra revenue of £16 million which the Minister hopes to raise be spent? I would like to see some of it going towards preventive dentistry and dental education. We also need increased use of dental auxiliaries and, now that we have received the report of the Royal College of Physicians, an extended use of fluorides. The total annual revenue from all these charges will be far in excess of the £38 million which the Government think is essential for the mentally sick but which, they claim, cannot be found for them.
I hope that tonight the Minister will ignore his Left-wing extremists and confirm that these charges are consistent with the Government's real view, which is that they are a necessary element for financing the National Health Service. I hope he will now admit openly and honestly that charges of this kind are here to stay and that it would be totally dishonest for the Labour Party to continue to promise at each General Election that it will reduce or abolish the charges only to do precisely the opposite when it is elected.

10.31 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I wish to intervene only briefly in the hope of getting an assurance from the Government. I have always been concerned that the high basic rate of charge for dental care, which is what these Statutory Instruments amount to, will deter regular check-ups by young people. We have been trying so hard to instil this habit in young people in the hope that they will carry the practice through into adulthood. I am concerned that we should extend—not contract—preventive dentistry. Yet in spite of all the verbiage I have seen in the newspapers and other journals on this subject, we have heard very little from the Government about it.
I am also concerned about the problems of accessibility to dentists and the numbers of dentists in certain areas. In 1974 there was a great deal of talk about the shortages of dentists. Before the second General Election of that year the Government were even talking about what they would do to meet this shortage. We heard that there would be additional remuneration. In August 1974 it was stated in The Guardian that newly-qualified dentists in selected areas would be offered rent-free, fully-equipped surgeries and guaranteed minimum salaries. This issue seems to have gone very quiet since then and since a number of Questions were put down to the Secretary of State on the subject.
We have no idea whether the Government's promises of 1974 held good once they had managed to win the second General Election that year. Perhaps we may be told by the Under-Secretary this evening. Do the Government intend to make sure that city centres which have been short of dentists will get special attention in order to cut back, by preventive dentistry, on the enormous wastage incurred on giving dental care to people suffering from dental caries?
It amazed me to read in the British Dental Health Federation paper "Preventive Dentistry" that dental health was second only to mental ill health as the most costly single item in the nation's health budget. That expenditure is out of all proportion to the amount of attention we devote to providing preventive care. We have always accepted that it would be right to encourage and promote the health, particularly the dental health, of the public. Numerous Government speakers have said so on public platforms. But what we have heard and what we have seen in terms of firm decisions and a timetable of when it might be carried through are two entirely different matters. If we are to save money, which we know we desperately need to do, we have to set about preventing dental caries through greater efficiency and greater availability of treatment at an early age when decay begins its attack.
Already my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) has mentioned the 25 per cent. of pre-school age children, aged one to four, who have an average of more than one decayed

tooth each. But when it comes to 75 per cent. of five-year-olds having at least one decayed, missing or filled tooth—I mean missing by extraction, and not missing because it has been pulled out for a sixpence under the pillow—we know that right at the bottom of the scale we are still not getting through in terms of preventive dentistry.
When we consider the adult figures of 19·2 decayed, missing or filled teeth, we begin to see how the size of the problem in regard to secondary teeth is one to which we pay little attention in a preventive way as compared with other aspects of health care.
Whatever the Government may or may not do, information about diet and the effect of sugars on teeth can be made more widely known at little expense. We know that eating habits are ingrained in many sections of our population. However, if we can educate people about all the other free services which the present Government wish to give away—I do not quarrel with them about some of these services—we ought also to be able to give out information about what happens if one does not take care of one's teeth.
It is indicative of the way that the present Government are thinking that they are setting a minimum charge which is high and which is likely to stop the regular preventive visits to the dentist, yet they are doing nothing, on the other hand, to increase health education in relation to teeth. There are a number of things that we need, and not only health education techniques.
After a lot of thought, I have decided that I shall put my vote to adding or allowing people to add a very small part of fluoride to our water, because that can prevent the bill that we now face by reducing caries in teeth by one-half. To those who say "No, it should not be mass medication"—a topic that we often hear about—I say that there are other ways. There are mouth washes. There are tablets. Some school dental clinics and some dentists now give their patients regular mouth washes with 0·5 per cent. sodium fluoride in them. This undoubtedly, as is proved by research, is helping to reduce the amount of dental caries.
When I first started in the research world I was amazed to learn that back


in 1952 less than 50 per cent. of our population used toothpaste. I could hardly believe it. I regret to say that north of the border the figure was even worse. Things have improved. We have gone some way to increasing dental care, but by no means have we gone the distance that is required if we are to prevent the cost of £140 million per annum that we spend on dental care—not preventive care, but all the fillings and extractions and all the "nasties". It is not just a question of the money. We also lose 600,000 working days a year just through bad teeth.
Therefore, if we are really to change our system of charge, the Minister should look again at the question whether there should not be a minimum charge for regular check-ups, because it is through regular check-ups that much of the decay is prevented. It is also prevented through regular teeth-cleaning—which his Department could promote if it had the will rather than just the word—and through regular descaling of teeth. By these means we should be preventing what has become a major scandal in wasted money, because we do not prevent the decay when it sets in.
This may seem a small subject. However, it involves a large amount of money and a lot of pain and misery. Therefore, when the Under-Secretary considers altering charges he should also consider his wider responsibility for prevention.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about dentistry but it will not take long since my knowledge of the subject is limited.
The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) used some amusing phrases. He said that the Government were going forward while moving backwards. However, he only adds to my confusion by moving the annulment of an Order with which he agreed. But I am new to the House, and no doubt I shall understand its peculiarities before long. I understand that those of us who would like to vote against the Order will now not be able to do so. Perhaps someone can explain that to me later.
The Liberal Party has always been against charges to any recipient of

medical services. The hon. Member for Reading, South apparently considers the so-called lunatic Left of the Labour Party to be the only people who now agree with us on that. If so, then on this subject at least I say, more power to their elbow. I only wish a few more had been here to force a vote.
What is the net income from these charges, after allowing for administration, which must be substantial? Has there ever been an investigation of the long-term effect of charges? Like many others, I have long criticised these charges because they put people off seeking help for a minor problem and wait until the treatment is extensive and therefore expensive. I have always suspected that the only saving achieved by charges is in putting people off seeking the initial medical services when required. If that is the reason for them, the Government should admit it. If it is not, I should like to know what the reason is.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) drew attention to the variation in dental services between different regions. I recently asked the Minister for the number of people per dentist in each of the area health authorities. I was staggered at the discrepancies—from just under 2,500 in London, which seems to have the best services in just about everything, to 5,000 in the Trent area. In my area and the North-East, the figure was 4,500. In the worst areas, are people's teeth in a terrible state? Are there enormous queues for even minimum attention? If not, what do London dentists do for a living?
I understand that the Order also covers National Health Service lenses. An optician in my constituency considers it foolish to recommend anything but toughened lenses for the children he sees. He considers that there is a substantial risk of injury from the non-toughened glasses, and contends that there is a reduction in risk by having toughened glasses. He assures me—I do not know whether it is true—that toughened glasses result in a charge to my constituents. Will the Minister comment on that?
I only wish there were some way in which we could cast a vote at the end of the debate, but I suspect that this will not be possible.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) pointed out that the position in Scotland concerning dental health and care is worse than that on this side of the border, and I am afraid we have to admit that that is the case. We have poor teeth, and a larger number of people left with no teeth earlier in life than in other parts of the United Kingdom. I am quite sure that wrong diet and an addiction to sugar and starchy materials play a role here.
I do not know much about the use of toothpaste in the past, but when I was in the Army I had a friend from the Glasgow area who cleaned his teeth—I suppose very effectively—with carbolic soap. I believe that Scout masters are sometimes addicted to ordering their charges to wash out their mouths with carbolic soap when they have used language considered to be against the Scout law. People probably cleaned their teeth in the past, though perhaps not in the right way.
However, the real problem, on which I should like to have some assurance from the Under-Secretary, is how he assesses the chances of this increase in charges discouraging younger people from having the dental treatment that they should have as soon as they need it. This is the real problem.
There are people who, after they leave school, simply stop having dental treatment at all. This was certainly true in the past. Their view was that the sooner all the teeth were bad and and out and a denture inserted, the better off they would be. I am sure that this view has changed, because I have observed among ordinary working people at home a far stronger desire to go to the dentist now than in the past. I suppose this is partly because many of them, through their trade unions, have agreements which allow them to have time off for treatment. I should like to have an assurance on this point from the Under-Secretary.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: We are talking about dentistry and dentists, and the problem of dental care and the care of the teeth. I should like to ask the Minister, as we pray against this Statutory instrument, whether he is satisfied that the dentists have a sufficiently

strong voice in the new reorganisation of the National Health Service.
As the Minister knows, I serve on the South-East Thames Regional Health Authority, and I have heard concern expressed—certainly within England—that the dentist's voice is very much less powerful than that of the ordinary doctor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) made an extremely interesting, constructive and thoughtful speech, lifting the problem of the care of the teeth and the preventive care of the teeth out of the general medical problem.
As the Minister seeks—as I am sure he will—to answer some of the questions, will he also state whether he is satisfied that concern about the care of teeth is being expressed administratively at district level, area level, regional level, and in his Department?
I know that dentists feel that their particular specialised knowledge of this aspect of medical care is sometimes rather low in the queue of priorities, and that their voice is overpowered by the voice of the medical man and the medical administrator in our reorganised health service.
In my own region we are rather lucky, in that the senior medical administrator of the region, the regional medical administrator, is qualified both as a medical man and as a dentist. We are rather fortunate in that he qualified, as my hon. Friend did, at Guy's. We are lucky to have a man with a dual qualification, and in this region that satisfies both sides of the profession. It means that the administration is taking care of these two aspects of our health care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey mentioned a figure of £140 million for dental care. I think that that must be the figure for England and Wales. She said that it was a small sum, and it is small compared to the total vote of the National Health Service, which is approaching £4,000 million. I should, therefore, like to think that the voice of the dentist is heard and that what we have said tonight will be taken into account by the Minister and reflected upon after the debate. I hope that the views that have been expressed will be covered in a note from the Department to the authorities to be aware that there is this concern among


all those connected with the administration of the Service both in this House and on the various boards of management.
I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), as I do with the thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey. I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said about the absorption of the dentists' voice in the administration of the Health Service.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: I should like the Minister to explain these increases very carefully, because I consider them to be pretty high. Fortunately, we do not often have increases in charges for dentures and optical equipment, but when we do the increases are apt to be fairly steep. My researches show that the increase in 1971 amounted to 121 per cent. What is the average increase, particularly for dentures, on this occasion? It is a fairly steep increase, particularly where a full set of dentures is required.
Reality has come through to the Government. They have to make these increases to give them room for manoeuvre in other parts of the Service. I recall in 1971, early in my career in the House, listening to the debate in which my Government sought to increase the charges, not because we wished to do so but for no reason other than to enable the then Secretary of State to do more in other directions within the Service.
We were pilloried at that time. We were told that the increases would be resisted by the then Opposition with all their strength. The right hon Lady the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection called it "death by a thousand cuts" of the National Health Service, and she went on to pillory us for the method of proportional charging for dentures. I should like to know the method of proportional charging for dentures on this occasion.
I hope that we shall hear from the Government a fairly contrite explanation of these increases. I hope, too, that the Government are being realistic and not overcharging for teeth, because I feel that many people will find these charges particularly hard to meet at this time.

10.49 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael 'Welcher): This has been a valuable and interesting debate. Although it was rather short, important questions have been raised, and we have heard some curious anecdotes such as the one about the use of carbolic soap for cleaning teeth.
The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), who opened the debate, normally makes constructive speeches, and his speech tonight was constructive. Even if there were one or two lapses, he asked a number of reasonable questions, and I shall try to give him a number of reasonable answers.
I am rather surprised that the Opposition should pray against the Regulations, because there is no question but that the changes we have made are generally welcomed by the relevant professions. They have ended the damaging system introduced by the Conservatives, which not only led to an automatic increase in dental charges as costs rose but in certain cases, such as when patients needed extensive dental treatment, led to what can only be regarded as a real disincentive to treatment.
The hon. Gentleman made a mistake, and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) made the same mistake, when he suggested that there might be a disincentive for children. Dental treatment for children up to the age of 21 is exempt from the charges.
I also take issue with the hon. Gentleman on his general philosophy about charges, in one very important respect. The hon. Gentleman said that he believed in the necessity for charges, and not only from the financial point of view. That is an important consideration for any Government who are pressed financially as much as we are, and as much as most Governments normally are. But the hon. Gentleman also said that charges were needed from the demand point of view. That seems to suggest that charges are imposed with the aim of rationing the meeting of need. We in the Labour Party have resolutely set our face against that. If what the hon. Gentleman said were correct, there is a real difference of philosophy, because we do not believe in a system of charges. It is still our clear intention to move


away from them when economic forces permit.
The decision to increase the revenue from dental and optical charges at the same time as we revert to what we regard as a much fairer system of charging was not easy for the Government, because charges of any kind in the National Health Service are alien to our philosophy. But we faced an extremely difficult problem of soaring costs, with substantial increases both in the cost of supplies and labour and in the remuneration of dentists and opticians at a time of rapid inflation. Over the past two years, for example, the overall effect has been to increase the items on the dental scale of fees by an average of more than 50 per cent. Unless some contribution were obtained from increased patients' charges, the extra costs could be found only at the expense of other Darts of the National Health Service, at a time when we face the greatest financial stringency.
The gross cost of the National Health Service in Great Britain has increased from just over £3 billion in 1973–74 to an estimated £5 billion in 1975–76. The combined gross cost of the general dental and ophthalmic services has increased by 66 per cent, over the same two-year period. Those are masive increases.
When the Labour Government came to office in 1974 we decided against any further increases in lens charges, despite increases in costs. We also froze the charges for spectacle frames. In October 1974, when dentists' fees rose by 23 per cent., we froze dental charges at the 1973 level, and we thus protected all patients from any increases in charges for more than a year. Even though it has not been possible to maintain the "freeze "against the rapid rate of inflation that we have seen recently, the proposed increases in what are only occasional items of expenditure are still modest.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Reading, South to give the reason for the increase in charges and how the charges are determined. Our purpose is simply to restore the proportion of the yield from charges to the total costs of services to that which obtained when dental charges were frozen in 1974, that is, 18 per cent. of the cost of the dental services, leaving aside the cost of sight
tests which have always been free to the patient, and 54 per cent. of the cost of ophthalmic services. The increase in dental charges imposed under the Order is £8 million to £9 million a year and in optical charges it is £5 million to £6 million a year. The total revenue, taking into account these estimated increases, for optical and dental charges in a full year is about £66 million, which is substantially short of the figure which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Dr. Vaughan: I was asking for the total revenue charges for the whole of the National Health Service and what proportion of those charges came from prescription charges, dental charges and ophthalmic charges.

Mr. Meacher: I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman the figures for prescription charges in writing. Tonight we are debating optical and dental charges and I have given the total revenue, including the increase under the Regulations, which is about £66 million. I have indicated the purpose for which we believe this increase is required.
The hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) made a number of comments about the purposes for which she would like to see the increased revenues used. Although I am at one with her on most of her objectives, I want to comment on one or two matters. She mentioned the scheme which has been announced to encourage dentists in certain areas because the distribution of dentists is far from uniform throughout the country. Dentists are independent contractors under the family practitioner committees and, as such, they are entirely free in that capacity to accept or decline any patient for National Health Service treatment even in an emergency. Under the present system they cannot be compelled—and I do not suppose that the hon. Lady is recommending any change—to take part in any rota to be on call or other emergency arrangement, or even be directed to practise in any particular part of the country.
We are concerned about this and I assure the hon. Lady that following the report of the working party on the dental services, consultations are progressing at present between the Health Departments and the British Dental Association which are aimed at setting up several experimental emergency services to examine


whether such services can be justified. The object is to determine the true extent of the problem by an experiment which can be properly designed and monitored. I can at least give the hon. Lady an assurance that we are concerned about the distribution of dentists and are seeking measures to improve it.

Mrs. Chalker: The question I asked was: what happened to the proposals announced at the end of July 1974 by the Secretary of State in reply to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)? The Secretary of State said that the Government would provide rent-free fully-equipped centres for dental care in the deprived health areas. That proposal gave hope to the people who were fighting a battle for the deprived areas. Since that promise was given nothing has happened.

Mr. Meacher: As I said, negotiations with the British Dental Association on that scheme are still continuing. I am as concerned as is the hon. Lady that we should find an effective means to improve the distribution of dentists, but a number of complex financial and administrative problems have to be studied. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement before long.
If the Regulations were to be annulled, as is proposed by the Conservative Party, it would be necessary either to cut expenditure on other parts of the NHS or to raise revenue from the charges in a different way. If we were to revert to the cost-related system introduced in 1971 by the then Conservative Government, it would mean an increase in lens charges of about 100 per cent., making the cheapest single-vision lens about £2·30 and the most expensive single-vision lens a staggering maximunm of £6·40. By contrast, these Regulations provide for one standard charge of £2·25 for a single-vision lens whatever its type or power.
To give the House an independent view, I will quote the judgment of the optical profession as expressed by the Secretary of the British Optical Association in the journal Ophthalmic Optician last November. He said:
Cost-related charges"—
those introduced by the Conservative Government—
acted unfairly against those most in need clinically, and complicated the administration

at both practice and family practitioner committee level, to say nothing of confusing the patient.
That was said of the system we are proposing to change tonight. That view shows the desirability of making these changes, quite apart from the cost aspects.
If we were to revert to the Conservative system of dental charges it would mean that all dental charges would increase by an average of 53 per cent., and many patients would have to pay the £10 maximum for a course of treatment. By restoring the system followed by the previous Labour Government, whereby the patient pays the full cost up to a much lower maximum, we ensure that the patient can seek dental treatment in the certain knowledge that he will not have to pay more than £3·50 for a course of treatment, except where dentures are supplied. The Regulations provide a real improvement for those who are most in need of either dental or optical treatment. We have reverted to the flat-rate system of charges in force under the previous Labour Government.
The Government regard health charges in general as entirely alien to the philosophy of a National Health Service which is free at the point of need. If at a time of desperately scarce resources we must have charges, we believe it makes a mockery of the concept of the NHS to impose the highest charges on those most in need of treatment. That was the principle of the 1971 Conservative system. That is why we have always condemned it vigorously and why we have changed it. The Regulations do away with the cost-related approach under which those who needed the most expensive treatment and the highest-powered glasses had to pay most.
For dental treatment we have returned to the system under which the patient pays the full cost—that is, the current authorised fee—but only up to a maximum of £3·50. That compares with the maximum charge under the previous scheme of £10. The charges for the supply of dentures, or a bridge replacing the same number of missing teeth, vary from £5·40 to £6·60, with a maximum charge of £12 per course for more than one denture. Where a course includes both treatment and the supply of denture or dentures, the charge is the total of the cost of treatment, subject to the maximum of £3·50, the


appropriate fixed charge for the denture, subject to an overall maximum of £12. That is basically the system we are proposing.
The hon. Member for Wallasey said that people will be discouraged from seeking regular treatment because they will have to pay more for less extensive courses of treatment. I agree that that is the position, but I do not believe it will have the consequence she said. The initial examination is still free. The people who already attend their dentists regularly appreciate the value of regular checks. I do not see any reason to suppose that they will be discouraged by the possibility of paying a little more than previously to ensure that their teeth are kept in good order. On the other hand, patients who require more treatment certainly do not need any kind of monetary disincentive. They do not need to be put off by any fear of escalating cost.
It is not true to say, as some Conservative Members seem to imply, that only people who neglect their teeth need extensive treatment. The patient may have a defect in general health, or there may be a defect in the treatment that is given for a medical condition. Either situation can give rise to caries or gum conditions which require extensive dental treatment. Unlike the scheme introduced by the Conservative Government, the charges embodied in the Regulations will ensure that many unfortunate people, through no fault of their own in many cases, do not have to bear a disproportionate burden of charges. I believe that that is an important improvement.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend is making about the scheme, but as regards what he said earlier about not being able to compel dentists to work within the National Health Service, is he aware that in East London, where there is a great deal of call upon dental services and where dental facilities are not as extensive as they should be, many dentists who are faced with patients requiring extensive treatment are refusing to take them under the NHS? Those patients are thereby forced to pay very much higher fees than those which my hon. Friend is quoting under the regulations.

Mr. Meacher: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close and enduring in?

terest in these matters in the East End of London. However, the fees that are paid to dentists are reviewed and updated regularly on the recommendation of the Dental Rates Study Group. That body consists of representatives of the dental profession, including practising dentists, and members of the Health Department in equal numbers under an independent chairman. I believe that my hon. Friend will agree that dentists have an important say in what is decided. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that fees should not properly represent what dentists or their representatives believe to be necessary for certain courses of treatment.
The fees that are arrived at—this may be one of the sources of complaint—are an average for a particular item. There may be an element of swings and roundabouts because extra time and cost may be involved in difficult cases which is not necessarily proportionately remunerated. But that has to be seen against the cases which are less time consuming and less costly than the average, which are equally well remunerated. I do not think that there is a case for saying that that is a reason for there not being a suitable level of care in the East End. The matter has to be tackled in other ways and we are in close consultation with the British Dental Association in seeking to improve the situation.
I turn to the optical side of the Regulations. The Regulations provide for three flat-rate charges: a single charge of £2·25 per lens for single-vision lenses—the most popular—instead of the variety of charges ranging from £.1.20 to £3·20 per lens under the previous scheme; and two rates of £4·25 and £5 for bifocal lenses, depending on the type of lens. These compare with previous charges ranging from £2·45 to £3·50 per lens. Here again, we are introducing flat-rate charges for spectacle lenses in place of the Conservative cost-related charges because the latter lose most heavily on points in the most serious eyesight problems.
There is no charge for a sight test or a dental examination, and some items of dental treatment—for example, arrest of bleeding and repairs to dentures—continue to be free.
I turn to exemptions and remissions from charges. I have already said that people up to the age of 21 are entirely exempt. I emphasise that many patients


—not only children but those on low incomes, expectant mothers and women who have given birth to a child within the previous 12 months—are wholly exempt from charges. In about 60 per cent. of courses of dental treatment no charges at all are paid by the patient.
In introducing the new charges, we have made a special effort to protect those most in need. The increases in supplementary benefit rates and the doubling of the earnings disregard from £2 to £4, both of which came into effect last November, will ensure that more patients will pay no charges at all or will qualify for help with their charges. To increase even further the numbers who will get this help, we have raised from £1·50 to £2·50 the margin, known as the tolerance margin, above the supplementary benefit level which is taken into account when assessing whether a person can afford to pay charges.
Finally, we have announced that we intend to exempt altogether from optical charges a group of people with special visual needs, namely the registered blind and partially-sighted, many of whom can be helped by spectacles. This exemption cannot take effect immediately because it needs legislation, but I assure the House that we are working out the necessary procedures, in consultation with the profession and others involved, and the necessary legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. Penhaligon: Mr. Penhaligon rose —

Mr. Meacher: I am about to come to the point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned dealing with toughened lenses. These lenses are available under the general ophthalmic services on the payment of an extra charge of about £1 or £2 per lens, depending on type. But if people have a clinical need for such lenses, they can obtain them free of extra charge under a hospital or school eye service. I am referring to the case where there is a clinical need rather than a preference not based on clinical need.

Mr. Penhaligon: I find it difficult to understand the difference. My optician tells me that the clinical reason of which he takes account in deciding whether children should have spectacles with toughened lenses that in childlike play

glasses break and there is a strong clinical danger involving substantial damage to eyesight. If the hon. Gentleman does not regard that as a clinical reason, will he say what is? Indeed, in such circumstances could not every child claim toughened glasses?

Mr. Meacher: If the doctor believes that they are clinically necessary and if they are prescribed under the hospital or school eye service, there is exemption from any increase in charge. I hope that those observations meet the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mrs. Chalker: I should like to raise one matter which bears particularly on the observations of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). Has the Department examined the saving which could be made by the provision of 80 per cent. hydroscopic lenses in place of the toughened lenses which are obviously dangerous for some children but which are probably better than the normal type of lens? Hydroscopic lenses would cut out the problem and would probably be cheaper. What has the Department done?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady did not warn me that she would ask me about hydroscopic lenses. I shall be only too pleased to make inquiries of the Department as to how far we have examined whether it would be cost-effective to have hydroscopic lenses as opposed to toughened lenses. I assure the hon. Lady that I shall write to her.
In making these charges we have also announced other, long overdue, improvements in the ophthalmic services which I am sure the House will welcome. They are improvements for which the increased revenue from the charges will help to pay.
First of all, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House last November, we want to improve the range of spectacle frames which are available under the National Health Service so that patients have a real choice between National Health Service frames and private frames. At present over 50 per cent. of persons obtaining lenses under the National Health Service have them fitted into new private frames, often at considerable expense. This has been for a long time a weakness of the service and


we are now taking action to try to remedy it. My right hon. Friend has invited the industry and the profession to discuss together how we can provide a range of attractive, modern frames at reasonable cost under National Health Service arrangements for people who do not want, or cannot afford, to pay high prices privately for attractive good quality frames. I am glad that the hon. Member for Reading, South believes, as we do, that this is a valuable and important initiative.
Secondly, we are making some small but important improvements in the services for children. We propose to add the most popular plastics adult frame to the range of frames which can be supplied free to children. At present the only frames available to children free are wire or wire-ended frames. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that a great deal of distress is caused to children who feel self-conscious in such frames but whose parents in many cases cannot afford to buy the more attractive frames. We are discussing the timing of necessary adjustments in production with the industry. However, I hope that the frame will be available free to children by the end of this year.
We are also proposing to provide children who have very poor sight needing strong correction with free plastics lenses as an alternative to glass. I think this point will interest the hon. Member for Truro. Glass lenses which incorporate powerful corrections can be very heavy and uncomfortable—these are the so-called pebble lenses. Plastics lenses can provide the same correction but without the disadvantage of weight. We are discussing with the industry how quickly the necessary adjustments in production can be made so that these can be supplied free to children.
In addition, we have removed, as from 1st January this year, the charge made for supplying under the hospital eye service contact lenses to children who have a clinical need for them. A clinical need is a necessary qualification to impose but it should not in any way deprive children who have a real need of them.
Much as we deplore the necessity to levy any charges for National Health Service treatment, a substantial rise in costs could not be contained within the

Health Service budget and we, therefore, had to find a means of making these charges in such a way as to distribute them more fairly.
The revised system of charging has been welcomed by the optical profession as a fairer and simpler system of levying charges on patients and of reducing administrative work. The dental profession, which was opposed to the previous cost-related system, has given a cautious welcome to the revised system.
I am convinced that the charges we have introduced, together with the extra provision which I have briefly sketched to protect those on low incomes, will not place an unduly high burden on any patient or group of patients. I believe that people will understand the need in our present economic situation for these charges and that, where they face higher charges for the care of their eyes and teeth, they will be prepared to pay the small increases we feel constrained to impose.
On that basis, I commend the Regulations to the House.

Dr. Vaughan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the OECD Financial Support Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the Inter-American Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1976, a draft


of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the European Free Trade Association (immunities and Privileges) (Revocation) Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr Thomas Cox.]

DIPLOMATIC AND INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

That the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges) Miscellaneous Provisions Order 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Question agreed to.

CYPRUS

Ordered,
That Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine be discharged from the Select Committee on Cyprus and that Sir George Sinclair be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

CIVIL SERVICE

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I am grateful to have this opportunity to comment on some of the criticisms of the Civil Service which have been made over the last six months. I think the House knows well my interest in the Civil Service as parliamentary adviser to the Civil and Public Services Association.
Civil servants, like mothers-in-law, are stock-in-trade for second-class comedians. Nobody worries very much about that, save perhaps the very sensitive civil servant, and even he probably enjoys the occasional episode of "The Men from the Ministry." However, civil servants are also stock-in-trade for those editorially in charge of the various organs of the media. Again, the occasional outburst, particularly by the more choleric Right-wing editor or the more irresponsible politician, can be borne with fortitude. However, the attacks by the media and by some politicians over the last

six months have been virtually unparalleled. Their persistence has been exceeded only by their misinformation and distortion.
In a democratic society it is only right that the instruments of Government should be scrutinised closely, and at the present time no one should attempt to prevent a public debate both in this Chamber and throughout the country on current and future levels of public expenditure. But a debate about public expenditure is essentially a political debate. It is not furthered by an ill-conceived attack on the agents who carry out the will of Parliament. Those who refuse to face the real arguments about public expenditure—what proportion of money should be spent on the old, the sick, housing, the disabled and all the other costs associated with the development of a civilised society because they are afraid to talk in real terms—often take the cheap way out by attacking the Civil Service.
It is impossible, in the brief time available to me this evening, to deal with the vast amount of distortions and innuendoes which have been perpetrated on the public over recent months. Indeed, my purpose in raising this issue is to encourage Ministers and Members to spend more time defending their servants who, apart from their unions, have no other effective way of offering a defence. We expect of our civil servants a measure of circumspection in public affairs but the price of that should be an expectation that they will be defended against irresponsible or political attack.
There are three areas where attacks have recently been concentrated. First, there is the attempt to persuade the public that civil servants are grossly overpaid in relation to the rest of the community and have been feather-bedded against the economic difficulties experienced in recent years. Loaded statistics have been used and senior civil servants' salaries have been bandied about as if all civil servants are paid at this level. This has naturally caused some resentment among dedicated people in the lower ranks. A separate case can be made on top civil servants' salaries—and the salaries of Ministers—but I have not the time to develop it now.
The facts are that since 1964 the average civil servant's pay has increased by 196 per cent. while the average national wage has increased by 239 per cent. The permanent secretaries, whose pay and pensions have been quoted so much in recent months, number just 42 out of a total of 719,000. I hope that these figures help to put the matter in perspective.
Over 20 years ago, the Government of the day decided to take a long hard postwar look at Civil Service pay and conditions of service. The Priestley Royal Commision was appointed. Most of its recommendations were accepted by the then Government and have been faithfully followed, with the occasional hiccups because of incomes policy, to which I will return. Chapter 4 of the Report is well worth re-reading, because the arguments advanced there are not just of historical interest but are as relevant now as they were then. The Report stated:
We believe that the State is under a categorical obligation to remunerate its employees fairly and any statement … which does not explicitly recognise this is not adequate.
It went on to express the need for:
the maintenance of a Civil Service recognised as efficient and staffed by members whose remuneration and conditions of service are thought fair both by themselves and by the community which they serve.
The Commission made it clear what it meant by fairness in relation to pay:
The primary principle of Civil Service pay is fair comparison with current remuneration of outside staffs employed on broadly comparable work.
Such comparisons, it argued, would be fair to the taxpayer and fair to the civil servant.
But more important, however, was the Commission's firm view that this principle safeguarded the Civil Service from political pressure. We are now rapidly approaching a situation in which the Civil Service could be used and is being used by a few people in a devious way for possibly unscrupulous political ends. Those on the Opposition Benches who feel so inclined should remember the words of the Royal Commission:
principles are needed to govern Civil Service pay and they must be principles that can be applied consistently by successive Governments of different political complexions.

Otherwise
the non-political character of the Service might well be impaired.
These principles have been the consistent thread running through pay negotiations in the Civil Service for the last 20 years, through boom and slump. Anyone who criticises it might remember that the very principle of comparisons means that Civil Service pay inherently lags behind outside pay levels and that, as direct employees, civil servants bear the brunt of any Government incomes policy. Awards for various groups were delayed or cut by policies operating in 1961, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1973 and 1975. Awards following pay research exercises were modified as a result of Government incomes policies in 1966, 1968, 1973, and the procedure is at present suspended.
I accept that it is not satisfactory merely to argue that because these principles have existed for so long they can never he changed. I do argue, however, that it behoves those who criticise to offer an alternative method of pay determination which can be consistently applied. Not one critic has so far presented such an alternative. Unfortunately, I suspect that, by their very nature, the critics would not want to involve themselves in serious discussion.
I must now turn briefly to pensions. A comprehensive and, until 1972, a statutory scheme for superannuation has existed in the Civil Service since the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was the forerunner of practically all occupational pensions schemes in the country and for well over 100 years it led the field. In the late 1960s, however, it became clear that it was falling behind in a number of respects the occupational pension provisioning in this country. There was a lengthy review by the National Whitley Council and in 1972 a revised non-statutory scheme was introduced.
It is relevant to note, first, that the revisions and the associated annual pension increase provisions were proudly announced by Members of the Opposition then in Government and widely welcomed on all sides of the House. There were some criticisms in the Press, but most of these devoted themselves to areas, particularly provisions for widows, where they felt that the Civil Service scheme was less than generous compared with some private sector schemes.
A few years later, the Civil Service pension scheme is under attack, unfortunately by one or two leading Opposition Members who were a part of the Government who originally proudly proclaimed them. Any hon. Member who involves himself in the complexities of pension provisioning is a brave man. I therefore want to deal briefly with only two points.
First, the pension increase arrangements, which, it is pretended, apply only to civil servants, also directly or indirectly involve local government staff, teachers, firemen, policemen, National Health Service staff, the Armed Forces and, amongst a number of others, not least, retired Members. I find it very difficult to understand an argument in which the critics a few years ago welcomed inflation-proofing as a socially necessary arrangement but now decry it when it is most needed because real inflation has hit us. Perhaps they should have said at the time that they agreed with inflation-proofing but only when there was no inflation.
The second lie is that because civil servants have a non-contributory pension scheme they are not paying for it. The only time the Civil Service scheme was contributory was for a short period in the middle of the nineteenth century when the Government introduced it with the deliberate intention of cutting pay. It is necessary to state quite boldly and unequivocally that if arrangements were made to create a contributory pension scheme in the Civil Service, the resulting cost would almost certainly be greater. That is why the idea was rejected when the scheme was reviewed a few years ago. The salaries paid to civil servants are adjusted downwards on the independent advice of the Government Actuary to take into account pension provision.
There has been some very disturbing Press speculation in the last few days that the Government are considering breaking the commitment to increase pensions in line with inflation. Were that to happen, it would be a complete breach of faith and I should like an assurance from the Minister that it will not happen. The solution to the problem is for the Government to ensure the continuing success of their anti-inflation policy, and in this they will have my every support.
Finally, and this deserves and will undoubtedly get a debate in itself later, there is the question of Civil Service

manpower. Here the media have a field-day. It is so easy to poke fun at the civil servant with his so-called safe job. In periods of prosperity he is treated editorially with contempt because he prefers a relatively secure job doing a worthwhile but often unrecognised public service instead of joining the thrusting, go-ahead rat race. In periods of depression he is treated with a mixture of envy and sometimes spite. It should not be a matter of scorn that the Civil Service does not hire and fire as peremptorily as some private employers.
Again, what are the facts? The Civil Service undergoes more staff inspection and manpower controls than any other comparable industry. This is necessary because hon. Members, including myself, are constantly scrutinising manpower figures. The plain fact is that the size of the Civil Service is almost precisely determined by the amount of work the legislature places upon it. Nothing could illustrate this more clearly than the Answers to the recent series of Questions I have asked Ministers.
Every Bill that comes up for discussion has the manpower and administrative implications detailed. Therefore, if the country wants to cut the Civil Service, it cannot do it by arbitrary measures, since the result will inevitably be that the legislation we pass will not be implemented. To cut the Civil Service will require a cut in existing services. Those who want cuts in the Civil Service should, therefore, join in the real debate about the size and nature of public expenditure and specify which functions should be abolished. They should not avoid the issues by choosing an easy and, unfortunately, popular target by blaming all our problems on the size of the Civil Service.
Again, there has been considerable speculation in the Press in recent days about massive cuts in manpower, with a figure of 100,000 redundancies being bandied about. Some security! I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on these reports and give an assurance that no cuts will be made without the fullest consultation with the unions and without the fullest implications being spelt out to the House.
The purpose of this debate is to take the opportunity to do the job that Members should all be doing—to defend their and the community's servants from the


distortions that are now rampant. We have always claimed to have the best, the least corrupt and the most efficient Civil Service in the world. I think that that is as true today as it ever was. But if the morale of the Civil Service is continually undermined without any defence from us, that boast will no longer be true.

11.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Charles R. Morris): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) for raising this issue tonight. Equally, I was impressed by the reasoned and responsible manner in which he presented his case. This is not a debate in which I shall need to argue with him about the facts that he has so eloquently set out.
Personally, I welcome this debate, in so far as it affords me the opportunity of giving a considered response to the recent sustained barrage of criticism of the Civil Service—to which my hon. Friend has referred—to comment on the controversy surrounding the pay and pensions of civil servants and to explain the background to the Government's declared intention to review Civil Service manpower and staffing levels. I trust that what I have to say on this last point will go some way to allay the anxieties in the minds of civil servants—anxieties that appear to have been heightened by recent Press speculation about the possible outcome of the studies which are currently proceeding.
As my hon. Friend has rightly indicated, everyone is entitled to his views about the Civil Service, because it belongs to everyone, but no one is served by views based only on a taste for colourful language and distaste for facts. Bashing the bureaucracy, clobbering the civil servant, despite the description that I heard given to it the other day as Britain's fastest-growing spectator sport, is by no means a new phenomenon. Over the years, civil servants have learnt to live with the caricature of the civil servant created by the cartoonists.
But the volume of sustained criticism that we have witnessed in recent weeks is beginning to have an understandable impact on the morale of the Civil Service. This is not because civil servants think that they should be immune from

criticism, or are too sensitive to it. They accept that fair criticism is healthy and a necessary feature of our democracy. They know that their actions on behalf of Government must be subject to public scrutiny, that the taxpayer must get value for money and must be able to see that he gets it.
I remind the critics that civil servants are people, too. They, too, expect a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and public understanding of the realities with which they, as public servants, are obliged to live.
In the short time available I cannot deal with every aspect of the pay and conditions of civil servants, but I should like to follow my hon. Friend's remarks on the subject of pay. I share his concern about the extravagant claims that have been made about special treatment given to civil servants, with no attempt to look at the history of Civil Service pay to see whether the claims are in any way related to the facts.
The truth is, of course, that for over 20 years Civil Service pay has been based on a system recommended by a Royal Commission. This Government and, indeed, all previous Governments since 1955 have subscribed to the Priestley Royal Commission's basic principle of fair comparison. Following the recommendations of the Royal Commission an independent pay research unit was set up to identify the comparable outside work and establish the facts of what was paid for it.
The Royal Commission stressed that the Civil Service rate should not reflect the best—or worst—rate in the field, but should be at about the middle level of rates paid, taking full account of differences in other benefits such as pensions or perks, so that the comparison was full and fair.
The pay research system is designed to achieve one simple purpose which ought to be understood. That purpose is to ensure that the Government treat their employees no better and no worse than other employers and that Civil Service pay truly reflects the middle range of what is paid elsewhere for comparable work. The principle of fair comparison is a necessary one to which the Government remain committed—though I should also emphasise and remind the House that, as


my hon. Friend acknowledged, the pay research procedures are at present in suspense because the £6 pay policy applies directly to civil servants as to everyone else.
My hon. Friend also referred to pensions and their inflation-proofing. I am glad that he dealt with the criticism of this at some length, because it is a subject which has generated so much heat in recent months. As he has suggested, much of the criticism has been fanciful and unreasonable. In reality, of course, the average increase given to pensioners last year was under £3·50 a week. The cost in respect of Civil Service pensioners represented a small proportion—just 1½ per cent.—of the Civil Service pay bill. As my hon. Friend has indicated, inflation-proofing of pensions is not a benefit which is confined to civil servants. As he recognised, it is enjoyed by many others both inside and outside the public service. As I have told the House previously, the pensions increase review due later this year will need to take account of the economic circumstances which then apply.
I turn to the subject of manpower and staffing levels. Here again a sense of realism has been sadly lacking in some of the most recent comments. A singular exception, however, was the editorial in the Daily Mirror of 3rd February which, with a lucidity and brevity for which that newspaper has a well deserved reputation, recognised that we can make major savings in Civil Service manpower only by cutting the tasks which we expect civil servants to undertake. As that newspaper put it:
What is certain is that we cannot have more Government activity … and fewer people to run it.
It is all to easy in this area to slip into a convenient contradiction: on the one hand, to press for more and more to be done by the Government for all sorts of groups in society and, on the other, to continue to press for less taxation and fewer civil servants. We really do need to recognise, as the Daily Mirror did, and as my hon. Friend did this evening, that these two propositions are incompatible and to set about the serious business of choosing what we do or do not want to provide—and pay for—in our society.
There has been much speculation in the Press recently about the Government's current intentions about the size of the Civil Service, and I want to deal with this and the background. On 1st October 1975 there were a few over 719,000 staff in post in the Civil Service. The 1st January 1976 figures are not yet available. We shall not know the precise figures for a week or two. But it will be about 750,000. That is a big increase. I acknowledge that. But it includes something over 20,000 in the Manpower Services Commission who were reclassified as civil servants on 1st January 1976. The real rise since last April is about 30,000. On present trends the numbers will increase further.
The Government have decided that this rate of growth must be restrained. There are to be no arbitrary cuts. The Civil Service must be properly staffed to carry out its work. We shall continue to do everything possible to improve efficiency and encourage the economic use of staff, but any signficant reduction in the Civil Service must mean a reduction in the work load.
We are not, therefore, embarked, as some Press reports may have suggested, on immediate cuts in the Civil Service. For some time yet the number of civil servants is likely to increase. We are, however, reviewing thoroughly all aspects of the work of the Civil Service so that we may decide what changes can best be made to cut back on growth so that by 1978 the Civil Service is much more like the size it was last summer, including the Manpower Services Commission. This will involve difficult decisions which are likely to affect Government policies and standards of service to the public. Reductions will be made by wastage to the maximum extent practicable, but I cannot guarantee that there will be no redundant civil servants over the next two years or so.
While this manpower study is proceeding, it is too early for me to predict where the savings will be made. Once the necessary material has been assembled, the Government will be able to consider the options against the background of our priorities, and we shall then decide where the cuts will fall. I must, therefore, urge hon. Members and civil servants not to be misled by wild rumour or speculation.
I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be full consultation as appropriate with staff side interests about changes that affect them. The precise pattern of consultation must be a matter for Departments to work out with departmental staff sides, but my own officials have been in touch with the National Staff Side and my right hon. and noble Friend is to meet it on Monday next.
I hope it is clear from what I have said during the course of this debate that what I think is most necessary in relation to the Civil Service at the moment is to get away from the excesses of recent criticism and to inject some reality into the discussion. I applaud my hon. Friend's initiative in raising this subject tonight because of the contribution I hope it will make to that objective. Indeed, if I were to quarrel with him at all it would be in relation to the title—Civil Service—that he has chosen for this debate.
I think that one of the reasons why realism sometimes fails to make itself felt is a concern with the rather abstract concept conjured up by the term "the Civil Service". The very words sound mysterious, stuffy and threatening. But if we think of the people up and down the country who are doing jobs the country wants done—in health and social security, environment or defence, or

working as immigration officers, as prison officers, or printers in the parliamentary Press—a healthy breeze of reality blows in. It is much more difficult to talk glibly of
axe men in every corridor in Whitehall
when most civil servants are working diligently in the provinces and regions. It is much more difficult to propose cutting down on driving test examiners or re-training officers or Customs men than to talk vaguely of Civil Service cuts.
I would plead, therefore, for people to question the use of the term "bureaucrats" and to start thinking of the people and the work they do. More specific, informed, responsible criticism would be healthy. I hope that we can put an end to the vague, bilious hostility which simply undermines morale and mutual trust between civil servants and the public they serve.
Like my hon. Friend, I am only too conscious that civil servants make an essential contribution to many fields of our national life. They often face real difficulties in seeking to provide service to the public in the ways Parliament has willed. Their rewards are not excessive, but among them they have a right to expect that those they serve will judge them fairly.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.